Title: National Institute of Justice Journal No. 234.
Authors: William A. Geller, Tom Mieczkowski and Kim Lersch, Victor
Walter Weedn and John W. Hicks, and Mark Moore
Series: NIJ Journal
Published: December 1997
Subject: drug testing, technology in law enforcement, police planning and
management
70 pages
188,000 bytes
Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS
at 800-851-3420.
-------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE
Reviewing the feature articles in this issue of the National Institute of
Justice Journal, I was reminded of how numerous and wide-ranging are the
concerns of criminal justice professionals. So are the levels at which these
concerns are tackled: strategic planning, resource allocation, measuring
progress against goals--to name only a few. At one and the same time,
day-to-day practices are carried out, agency procedures are followed. On
the margin of the day a moment may be carved out for reflection, for
gaining perspective by pondering past actions as a prelude to defining
future courses.
The articles on DNA evidence by Victor Weedn and John Hicks and on
drug testing by Tom Mieczkowski and Kim Lersch are rooted in the
everyday practicalities dealt with by police, prosecutors, and the judiciary.
They illustrate as well the dependence of criminal justice practitioners on
the "hard sciences," and our rationale in selecting them for the Journal was
to help keep criminal justice professionals in these fields abreast of some
of the most advanced technologies and practices in use now and on the
horizon.
On the continuum of criminal justice concerns, the issues William Geller
raises in his article on police departments as "learning organizations" seem
to lie far from DNA and drug testing. To be sure, police management is no
less of a day-to-day proposition, but this article suggests mentally and
momentarily suspending workaday realities in order to consider broad new
management concepts in which research has a key role. The author
proposes that police organizations can institutionalize the learning process
in the same way as the country's best run businesses. Professor Mark
Moore's article on the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the
President's Crime Commission is more contemplative still. He suggests
that the Commission's vision, which encompassed preservation of liberty
and inclusion of social justice within the mission of crime control, still
applies, but that today we should embrace an even more ambitious vision
of justice--reconstructing social bonds that have been torn apart.
Collaboration among the components of the criminal justice system is far
more advanced today than in the days of the Commission. Part of moving
toward the reality of a "system" is familiarization by each component with
the others' concerns. This doesn't exclude borrowing practices that seem to
work for the other components. So, for example, the concepts elaborated
by Bill Geller for police departments could arguably be adopted by
prosecutors' offices. It's in the spirit of fostering this kind of "cross
training" that we present the current issue of the Journal.
Jeremy Travis
Director
National Institute of Justice
-------------------------------------------------------
National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis
Director
NIJ Journal Editorial Board
Sally T. Hillsman
Deputy Director for Office of
Research and Evaluation
John L. Schwarz
Deputy Director for Office of
Development and Dissemination
David Boyd
Deputy Director for Office of
Science and Technology
Cheryl A. Crawford
Mary G. Graham
Marj Leaming
Michelle-Marie Mendez
Christy Visher
Issue Editor
Judy A. Reardon
-------------------------------------------------------
The National Institute of Justice Journal is published by the National
Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, to
announce the Institute's policy-relevant research results and initiatives.
The Attorney General has determined that publication of this periodical is
necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of the
Department of Justice.
Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), a centralized
national clearinghouse of criminal justice information, is sponsored by the
Office of Justice Programs agencies and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. Registered users of NCJRS receive the National Institute
of Justice Journal and NCJRS Catalog free. To become a registered user,
write NCJRS User Services, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, call
800-851-3420, or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org.
The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
-------------------------------------------------------
FEATURES
Suppose We Were Really Serious About Police Departments Becoming
"Learning Organizations"?
Drug Testing in Criminal Justice: Evolving Uses, Emerging Technologies
The Unrealized Potential of DNA Testing
Looking Backward to Look Forward: The 1967 Crime Commission
Report in Retrospect
RESEARCH PREVIEW
Comparing Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities
DEPARTMENTS
Events
NIJ in the Journals
Recent NIJ Publications
Final Reports
Solicitations
New & Noteworthy
-------------------------------------------------------
SUPPOSE WE WERE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT POLICE
DEPARTMENTS BECOMING "LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS"?
by William A. Geller
William A. Geller, J.D., is Director of Geller & Associates, which
specializes in consulting on diverse partnerships for public safety. He is
grateful to Phyllis McDonald of the NIJ staff for her guidance in preparing
this article. This article was adapted and abridged from the author's
presentation at an NIJ "cluster conference" of participants in the Institute's
locally initiated research partnerships. The conference was held in
Washington, D.C., on January 24, 1997.
Introduction: The risks of not learning
An African proverb goes, "No one tests the depth of a river with both
feet." Yet thoughtful police sometimes wonder if their department is an
exception to this rule. They watch bewildered and despairing as their
organization leaps from one tactic and program to another--rarely
bothering to conduct a meaningful feasibility study or figure out what
worked and what didn't work and under what conditions the last time a
similar problem was tackled.
How many departments have ever jumped into a program with both feet,
sunk in the muck, and then compounded the problem by failing to learn
from the experience? How would Aleksandr Lebed, the retired general
who aspires to be the next President of Russia, size up such departments?
Commenting recently in The New York Times on the propensity of Russia
to lurch from one government to another, he said: "There's got to be a time
when you stop stepping on the same rake."
When traditional tactics seem defunct, why do police, other criminal
justice agencies, and politicians seem to have such a hard time cutting
their losses--such a hard time grasping columnist Molly Ivins' "First Rule
of Holes": "When you are in one, you should stop digging!"
We are confronted with a simply stated, yet daunting, challenge: Can our
police and sheriffs' departments find ways to work smarter, not just
harder? Is there a practical, day-to-day role for research and analysis in
helping collaborative organizations succeed more frequently and more
fully? Can we begin to institutionalize the organizational learning process,
just as our Nation's best run companies do, so that our departments can
serve and strengthen their communities more effectively, more efficiently,
and more legitimately?
I'd like to offer some tentative thoughts on the benefits for police
departments of becoming "learning organizations," the obstacles to doing
this, and the steps departments might be able to take to foster institutional
learning as a continual part of doing business.
For starters, what do we mean when we talk about a "learning
organization"? The concept was described in detail by management
consultant Peter Senge, but his general definition will suffice. "In
Chinese," he writes, " 'learning' literally means 'study and practice
constantly.' This, then, is the basic meaning of a 'learning organization'--an
organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its
future."[1]
Benefits
A learning organization becomes smart enough to decipher the useful
lessons an experience or study offers. It also becomes smart enough not to
overgeneralize. As Mark Twain cautioned: We should be careful to get out
of an experience only the wisdom that is in it, and stop there, lest we be
like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a
hot stove lid again, and this is well; but she will never sit down on a cold
one either.[2]
Learning not to overgeneralize--learning to diagnose more accurately--is
one possible benefit. Police departments might avoid generalizing, for
instance, about the kinds of community organizations that can become
trusted allies.
Pinning down in a demonstrable way, with supporting data, what works in
battling crime and disorder and in building community justice and
peacekeeping capacity is another benefit. Such knowledge can improve
police morale, increase public esteem for the department, and help the
organization and community better deploy resources.
Benchmarking is still another benefit. It involves learning enough about
what is average and what is excellent in an industry that standards can be
articulated as the object of professional aspiration. Police departments
could also learn to devise meaningful measures of "risk": such measures as
how soon and how hard crime comes back under different conditions after
a particular effort to suppress it.
As police departments experiment with and assess the efficacy of
strategies such as community policing, problem-oriented policing, and
restorative justice, they can learn better to distinguish between "conceptual
failures" and "implementation failures." If an initiative failed because the
basic strategy was flawed or because the approach works only in very
limited circumstances, that is important for the entire industry to know.
But if a concept such as community policing is found wanting, it may also
be because, as police administrator-turned-academic and artisan Wayne
Kerstetter quipped, "We didn't try it, and it didn't work." That is an
"implementation failure."
Thus, a learning organization capitalizes on its own and others'
experiences--successes as well as failures--to continually hone strategies,
tactics, operations, and networks of collaborators. A learning organization
learns to measure what really matters, for it understands that what we
measure is taken more seriously.[3]
Obstacles
If this is so good, why isn't every police department already what the
management gurus would call a "learning organization"? There are a
variety of impediments, including:
o Skepticism about research as ivy tower and impractical.
o Resistance to cooperating with outside researchers because too often
they have failed to provide feedback soon enough to assist practitioners.
This is research at versus research with a police department.
o Distrust of evaluation research because of the blisters that linger from
the last time the department was burned by a badly conducted study.
o Skepticism that research findings developed in another jurisdiction have
any application at home--an idea captured with the oft-heard assertion,
"My city is different." Consider the heavy burden of the "truly unique"
person: As they say, he can't learn from the mistakes of others, yet he
won't live long enough to make them all himself!
o The myth that encouraging critical thinking among the rank and file will
undermine necessary paramilitary discipline ("Yours is not to reason why,
yours is but to do or die").[4]
o The belief that thinking inhibits doing, an idea expressed in the first
century B.C. by the Greek philosopher Publilius Syrus. "While we stop to
think," he said, "we often miss our opportunity." But this is the same guy
who declared that "for a good cause, wrongdoing is virtuous," so consider
the source.
What examples might lead one to think that the person of action is
someone who does not stop to learn? Surely the example could not be an
NFL football team. Those beefy gladiators spend far more time watching
game films and practicing how to improve than they spend on the field.
Yet NFL players have something most police departments don't--or at
least don't avail themselves of: a powerful support team of thinkers,
analysts, and teachers. The average police department research and
development unit, as sociologist Al Reiss pointed out, does nothing
remotely resembling either research or development as those concepts are
commonly understood in industry and the professions.[5] So another
obstacle is the mistaken assumption that, because we have a unit called
"R&D," we've "got it covered."
o The indoctrination process of most police departments also inhibits
employees from contributing meaningfully to organizational
self-appraisal. As Hans Mattick observed several decades ago, "You can't
train an aviator in a submarine." If police recruits are taught not to think
critically, what a surprise that they don't know how to respond to their
bosses' challenge to be innovative, take calculated risks, and otherwise
contribute to the organization's continual reinvention!
A police department that denigrates rank-and-file thinking about the
organization's basic business establishes a culture likely to ridicule or
demean those who would take time from routine activities (random
preventive patrol, etc.), which police have taught themselves, politicians,
and the public constitutes real and tough police work. Herman Goldstein
worries that the "daily activities involved in conducting research may be
viewed . . . in the police subculture as 'goofing off.' "[6] How many
problem-solving brainstorming meetings have there been that a supervisor
adjourned with the exhortation, "O.K., now let's get back to work!"? Just
once, I wish an officer would retort, "I thought we were working just
now!"
o Another impediment is reluctance to have cherished views challenged.
An astute observer of the process wrote: "Even the best of us are prone to
making decisions based on biases and mindsets. Worse, we cling to
comfortable beliefs. As Francis Bacon pointed out, 'We prefer to believe
what we prefer to be true.' "[7] In traditional organizations, success is
often considered not rocking the boat.
o A related obstacle is confronted by those who might be assigned to "rock
the boat." "It is hard to engage in organizational self-criticism," Goldstein
observes, "knowing one must continue to work with the officers whose
current efforts are criticized."[8]
o There often seems to be insufficient time for employees to reflect on
their work, and a lack of time, authority, resources, and skills for them to
conduct research.
o Finally, there's the ancient and still mighty obstacle to innovation:
People usually fear change. Not everyone does, of course. Aleksandr
Lebed uses a litmus test to determine whether Russia's "new rich" are open
to change: "When I greet a group of entrepreneurs," he said, "I hail them,
'Hello, crooks!' If they take it O.K., then they are not hopeless. If they beat
their breasts and deny it, then they are incorrigible."[9]
Fostering the learning organization
Police departments didn't just develop their "learning disorders" overnight-
-they've worked at it for a long time! So what is one to do to begin to turn
the tide? Here are some tentative suggestions for fostering an
organizational culture that encourages continual learning.
One idea is to create an R&D unit that actually does research and
development, has a respectable budget, and is run by someone who
understands R&D. Reiss dropped the gauntlet for American policing this
way:
Research means empirical investigation that describes and explains how
things behave and change their behavior; development means the actual
implementation [and testing under field conditions] of models that
demonstrate whether an intervention works in a predictable way. Police
organizations essentially lack research and development units understood
in this way. The research unit of most police organizations typically is
responsible for providing a statistical description of the organization and
its inputs and outputs. Rarely does it undertake research that might lead to
development, and the department typically makes no provision for
development.[10]
Reiss sharply contrasts the Nation's defense industry, which spends a
sizable portion of its budget on R&D, with how policing--our domestic
defense industry--deploys its budget between operations, learning, and
invention. Police departments could consider establishing budget and
operational routines in which a percentage of the operating costs of new
initiatives are allocated to internal and/or external program assessment.
One practical way to increase the chances that an R&D unit will become a
useful internal source of learning and an effective broker between the
department's leadership and universities and other external think tanks is
to select as the R&D director someone with capacity and respect as a
manager of applied research. More and more we are finding examples of
police chiefs picking people like this. Yet how many departments' R&D
units are headed by--or at least have one staff member--who is a
well-trained researcher with the appropriate academic credentials? A
related, perhaps controversial step is to hire and develop sworn and
civilian personnel for units other than R&D and crime analysis who have
experience in learning through applied research and program assessment.
Who says they couldn't be good cops?
A second structure or process to foster learning might be crime analysis
that spans work units. Crimes, offenders, and victims often migrate
beyond precinct and even jurisdictional boundaries. Departments that have
created an infrastructure of geographical crime analysis powerful and
global enough to track crime patterns have increased their ability to spot
and respond to problematic patterns--and to recruit allies.
A third process to foster learning can involve senior police officials
reducing turf battles between departmental units. In its Compstat process,
the New York City Police Department holds monthly meetings to discuss
progress against crime and disorder patterns, and all units that could
reasonably be held accountable for attacking a particular crime problem
have senior representatives attend.
A way had to be found to cut through the legendary reluctance of some
units to cooperate and share knowledge with one another. Their
collaborative reluctance often reminds me of a wisecrack by Abbie
Hoffman at his arraignment in the Chicago Conspiracy Trial:
"Conspiracy?!" he asked the judge incredulously, looking at his
codefendants: "We couldn't agree on lunch!" In the NYPD a senior
official, with authority over all of the represented units, attends the
monthly meetings and can, if necessary, lower the boom on leaders of
units who unjustly hoard information or expertise.
A fourth idea is to take a "talent inventory" of sworn and civilian
employees' research, analytic, graphic arts, public speaking, and writing
skills. Knowing and showing what the work force's collective capacity is
to learn from experience and share the lessons learned in the organization,
in the profession, and in the community can help create useful internal and
external pressures to deploy those skills. Why ask police employees to
"check" their brains and adult problem-solving skills at the door when they
come to work? Must imagination be the enemy of discipline and honor?
Fifth, police departments might take a talent inventory of community
groups and other key community institutions. Police may be surprised to
learn about the range of skills their community has and would willingly
deploy to strengthen neighborhoods and collaborate with police.
Community organizations may have as members accountants, engineers,
public health specialists, educators, writers, lobbyists, public relations
experts, social workers, urban anthropologists, lawyers, business
managers, inventive entrepreneurs, sociologists, architects, and builders.
Universities will be full of talented analysts--although the department and
community of course have to be cautious consumers and pick people who
will offer practical, constructive criticism and assistance. Banks and other
service organizations, as well as merchants' and manufacturing
organizations, will have all kinds of analytic skills they may be willing to
share, particularly skills in strategic planning to identify and counter
external threats to achieving organizational missions.
A sixth idea is to foster learning by organizing police work around
problem solving and taking seriously the "SARA" process (scanning,
analysis, response, and assessment of results) for confronting problems.
Managers and groups of problem-focused officers, working with the
community, should devise team problem-solving procedures to guide their
work. Routines can be developed, including flexible checklists for
supervisors and community organizers, to ensure that problem solvers
don't cut corners that would weaken the department's or community's
capacity to make a difference.
One specific device that many police departments find useful for helping
officers brainstorm problems and make better use of lessons they've
learned is the "problem advisory committee." As part of the routine of
problem solving, police officers meet with a panel of their peers to
describe the problem, brainstorm its dimensions and its vulnerability to
countermeasures, and consider the comparative value for different
stakeholders of alternatives to the planned interventions.
A seventh possible process is to "prime the pump" of critical thinking and
to control the monster of "group-think" through devices such as a
"designated devil's advocate." We need structures and procedures in police
departments that invite reflection and questioning of assumptions. The
designated devil's advocate is a technique that some private-sector
organizations have used to craft a culture that undermines groupthink.
Groupthink inhibits critical assessment of majority views. The designated
devil's advocate involves charging someone who will be attending a
meeting to look for reasonable opportunities during that meeting to speak
up and challenge the assumptions and reasoning of the other participants.
This can be a useful way to more broadly define "employee loyalty" in
organizations not accustomed to peer or--God forbid--subordinate
questioning of the status quo.
An eighth structural suggestion is to use middle managers to facilitate
critical thinking. If, as many public- and private-sector organizational
leaders and consultants suggest, the middle manager is an increasingly
superfluous and even counterproductive cog, why not give him or her
something useful to do?[11] How about taking advantage of their
"boundary spanning" role in the organization--nestled between the
policymakers and those responsible for implementing the policy? Why not
charge them with facilitating critical thinking about the efficacy of policies
and implementation?
If we were really serious about this, the middle managers' performance
rating might depend to a significant extent on how effectively they inspire
their units and the community to constructively criticize and improve the
police department. So a ninth structural idea is to explicitly include as part
of individual and unit performance ratings the employees'
accomplishments in holding current practices up to the prism of industry
benchmarks and in helping to forge progress. Does this sound like the
Carpenter's exhortation to love thine enemies?
If so, it gets worse, for I offer a tenth structural suggestion to
institutionalize the bottom-up appraisal of organizational performance:
Invent an employee suggestion program that really works! Consider the
example of a mid-sized manufacturing company where the president was
chagrined that he was getting an average of only one useful suggestion per
year from each factory worker. He decided to pursue the world standard,
held at the time by a Japanese company, of one per week. Two years later,
he had succeeded.
What did he do? Unable to pay for the quantity of suggestions he needed,
he instituted two stringent procedures and steadfastly stuck by them. The
first was that every employee who offered a suggestion would get a reply
as to whether the idea was a good one within twenty-four hours. The
second rule was that, if the idea was considered good, it would either be
implemented--or at least the process for implementing it would
commence--within seventy-two hours of the suggestion.[12] No big cash
bonuses. Just the insight that, as Multnomah County, Oregon, District
Attorney Mike Schrunk observed, "In managing or collaborating well,
feedback is the breakfast of champions."
My eleventh thought on the subject is that we convincingly show police
employees that at least some prior research has had practical benefits for
police departments and for them as individuals. It is possible to really
capture their attention if we can show that research has contributed to
officer safety and the reduction of their career risks.
The spouse abuse studies--in Minneapolis and the replication sites--had a
demonstrable and largely salutary impact on arrest policy, even if there
was something of a rush to policy after the first widely publicized
findings. And the studies of preventing homicide and other crimes of
violence by going "upstream" and attacking precursor crimes have had a
significant impact. An example is George Kelling's case study of how the
New York City Transit Police, by, among other steps, preventing
"farebeating," excluded from the subways people who would commit
armed robberies and other serious crimes.[13]
A twelfth step in this plan for the recovery of the learning-disabled
organization is to continue and expand police-researcher partnerships such
as those sponsored by the National Institute of Justice. Such partnerships
allow for a sensible division of labor and, if we're lucky, stimulating
collaborations that inspire ever better work.
Finally, a baker's dozen thirteenth idea: If a police department finds a
researcher it really trusts, the department could contract with him or her
part-time to serve as a research "broker"--to help the agency become a
better consumer of other researchers' and advisers' services.[14] Some
agencies have acquired this kind of capacity by employing a criminologist
to run their planning or R&D units.
Structural and procedural steps such as these may hold promise of helping
police departments learn to learn. If so, our Nation's neighborhoods can be
the beneficiaries, for we shall come closer to meeting a fundamental
challenge that NIJ Director Jeremy Travis has presented for the criminal
justice field and for his colleagues at the Institute--to "ask tough questions
and provide honest answers." Doing so requires a fair amount of
"stick-to-itiveness," of course. As one wit recalled the story, "It was
Junior's first day in school, and when he got home his mother asked, 'Did
you learn anything today?' 'No,' he replied, 'I have to go back tomorrow.' "
Notes
1. Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the
Learning Organization, rev. ed., New York: Currency Doubleday,
1994:xv, 14.
2. Quoted in Geller, William A., and Guy Swanger, Managing Innovation
in Policing: The Untapped Potential of the Middle Manager, Washington,
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1995:138.
3. See Brady, Thomas V., Measuring What Matters: Part One--Measures
of Crime, Fear, and Disorder, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1996; and NIJ Director
Jeremy Travis's introduction.
4. See Tom Peters' assertion that successful military units and operations
often depend on critical thinking and, at times, on responsible, courageous
disregard of orders (quoted in Geller and Swanger, Managing Innovation
in Policing, 37-38).
5. Reiss, Albert J., Jr., "What Is 'R&D' Really?" in Local Government
Police Management, ed. William A. Geller, Washington, D.C.:
International City/County Management Association, 1991:339.
6. Goldstein, Herman, Problem-Oriented Policing, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1990:163.
7. From Jones, Morgan D., The Thinker's Toolkit: 14 Skills for Making
Smarter Decisions in Business and in Life, New York: Times Business,
1995.
8. Goldstein, Problem-Oriented Policing, 163.
9. Swarns, Rachel L., "Unlikely Meeting of Minds: Lebed Meets the
Donald," New York Times (national edition), January 23, 1997:A7.
10. Reiss, "What Is 'R&D' Really?" Goldstein, Problem-Oriented Policing
(pp. 161-163), makes similar observations.
11. See Geller and Swanger, Managing Innovation in Policing; Kanter,
Rosabeth Moss, "The Middle Manager as Innovator," Harvard Business
Review (July-August 1982):92-105; and Tobin, Daniel R.,
Transformational Learning: Renewing Your Company Through
Knowledge and Skills, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
12. Geller and Swanger, Managing Innovation in Policing, 140-141.
13. Kelling, George L., and Catherine M. Coles, Fixing Broken Windows:
Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities, New York:
Free Press, 1996.
14. For a groundbreaking study of why many municipal agencies have
difficulty effectively learning from their expert consultants, see Szanton,
Peter, Not Well Advised: The City as Client--An Illuminating Analysis of
Urban Governments and Their Consultant, New York: Russell Sage
Foundation and The Ford Foundation, 1981.
-------------------------------------------------------
DRUG TESTING IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE: EVOLVING USES,
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
by Tom Mieczkowski and Kim Lersch
Tom Mieczkowski, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of
Criminology at the University of South Florida. Kim Lersch, Ph.D., is an
assistant professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of
South Florida.
When the term "drug testing" is used today, it generally involves certain
assumptions about the types of illicit substances tested and the type of
technology employed. Usually, both speaker and listener are referring to
detection of one of the major illegal psychoactive drugs such as cocaine,
heroin, marijuana, or LSD. And usually both have in mind urinalysis as
the testing method. Certainly, for most of the history of drug testing, these
drugs have been the ones most frequently subjected to testing, with
urinalysis the standard procedure. So the assumptions would be based on
fact. But as drug testing as a fairly routine procedure enters its third
decade, the assumptions may no longer reflect reality because the types of
drugs attracting the most interest are changing, and the technology to
detect them is evolving to meet new needs.
These changes can best be understood in historical perspective. Looking at
the long view makes it easier to see how and why they occurred. A review
of the evolution of drug testing and its applications will demonstrate its
growing usefulness. In large measure these applications have resulted from
the continuing refinement of testing technologies. Some of these advances,
now in the development stage, show promise of making drug testing even
more efficient and effective and for extending the number and type of uses
for this valuable criminal justice tool.
Current role of drug testing
Because the use of toxins (or poisons) to inflict harm is an ancient aspect
of human misconduct, so are criminological investigations to detect them.
As part of these investigations, toxicological analysis retains an important
role, but the focus has changed in recent years. Public concern over the use
of illegal psychoactive drugs, plus heavy reliance on policing agencies to
enforce drug laws, have created a new and enhanced role for toxicological
testing in the past 20 years.
Today testing has several uses in the criminal justice system, but the one
of most immediate concern to practitioners is detection of illegal drug use
by people in custody. Within that context, drug testing can take place at
several points in processing offenders, and it has several purposes: to
obtain information about the frequency of drug use in particular
populations, to gather evidence for use in criminal proceedings, to
determine offenders' eligibility for various dispositions and programs
(such as treatment), and to ensure the drug-free status of convicted
offenders. (See "Uses of Drug Testing in Criminal Justice Practice.")
The evolution of drug-testing technology
For most of the past 20 years, the term "drug testing" has been
synonymous with urine testing, which remains by far the method of choice
in most criminal justice institutions. Several advances in technology have
made urinalysis more efficient and effective over the years.
Chromatography. The molecules of different substances move at different
rates and thereby create distinctive patterns that allow them to be
distinguished from one another. This property is the basis of the testing
method called chromatographic separation. Essentially, the molecules of
different substances, when placed on a surface, separate from one another
and form characteristic patterns or bandings.
Developed at the turn of the century, chromatographic separation began in
the 1960s to be widely used for screening (initial) tests to detect
psychoactive drugs. In the early form, thin-layer chromatography (TLC),
the unknown substance was placed in a chemical solution and applied to a
paper, causing bands of different lengths to appear. When subjected to
another chemical, identifying (chromatically distinct) colors also appeared.
Analysis of the bands and the colors permitted identification of the
substance.
TLC was slow and required interpretation by experts, but chromatography
subsequently became highly sophisticated and exact. Two new procedures,
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and gas-liquid
chromatography (GLC), are a major advance over the original TLC. But
like TLC they are slow, and they are also expensive. Thus, they are
generally used only to confirm the results of a screening test.[1]The "gold
standard" confirmatory test is gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS).
When chemical analysis to detect psychoactive drugs was first used in a
relatively routine matter--in the late 1960s and early 1970s--the procedures
used were TLC for screening, coupled with GLC as a confirmatory
process (if one was used).[2]
Immunoassays. A major technical development in the 1970s, the
immunoassay procedure represented an important advance over TLC. This
method uses certain chemical characteristics of substances to detect and
label specific drug compounds. Three versions widely used for screening
are enzyme multiplied immunoassays (EMIT[TM]), fluorescence
polarization immunoassay (FPIA), and radioimmunoassay (RIA).
The procedure increases the specificity[3] and reliability of screening. It
also lowers costs and decreases the time required, in part because it is
readily adaptable to mechanization, allowing large-scale processing.
Immunoassays permit relatively high accuracy in the screening test
without the use of confirmatory tests. (When confirmation of an
immunoassay is required, usually GC/MS is used.) Programs like DUF
have become practical because of the development of this type of
technology.
The growth of interest in drug testing
Routine biological testing to identify drug use is a recent phenomenon. For
example, only in the past decade has drug testing to ensure abstinence as a
criterion for probation eligibility become a major development and a
practice universally adopted throughout the United States. Advances in
testing technology have been a driving force in extending the applications
of drug testing, but these forces also include shifts in patterns of drug use,
rising public concern, and evolving public policy.
Increased drug use provides an impetus. The first use of drug testing as a
tool for detection among deviant, addicted populations does not appear in
the research literature until the late 1960s.[4] In the 1970s it was unusual
to find programs that routinely conducted testing to identify drug use. In
the cases reported in the literature of that period, testing was done
exclusively to measure the effectiveness of treatment. Of these, very few
instances were found in which drug testing (through urinalysis) was
conducted to assess the prevalence of drug use or to verify claims of drug
abstinence by people in custody. Evidence of the use of drug testing for
other purposes--epidemiological analysis, dispositional decisionmaking,
general monitoring of drug-involved criminal offenders, or routine testing
of people on probation or other forms of community release--is not found
in the literature.
Greater interest in testing to detect substance abuse in certain populations
arose in response to reports of increased levels of drug use and the
heightened public discussion that followed. By 1977 the first use of
urinalysis to evaluate the drug status of people in direct custody (in this
instance, arrestees in jail) was reported in the research literature,[5] and by
the early 1980s came the first research using urinalysis to assess the drug
status of "unapprehended street criminals."[6]
The move toward "aggressive" testing. During the Reagan administration,
drug testing as a generally acceptable technological application received
its greatest impetus. The administration's widespread program of testing
employees of Federal agencies not only gave the issue of drug testing
greater visibility, it also highlighted the availability of the technical
capability to conduct large-scale drug screening at relatively low cost.
By the close of the 1980s, the move to increase drug monitoring via
testing within the criminal justice system had gained considerable
momentum. With the development of rapid, cost-effective drug testing the
idea of a criminal justice-based drug monitoring system became more
realizable. As aggressive drug testing became more acceptable, the idea
gained currency. By 1989 the newly established Office of National Drug
Control Policy recommended "comprehensive use" of drug testing for
virtually all categories of people in the criminal justice system.
Current applications in criminal justice
Today, as a result of the comprehensive-use strategy, drug testing is
conducted at all stages of criminal justice processing, from the pretrial
stage through incarceration and release. The urgency of the drug problem
and the widespread use of testing has led researchers to turn their attention
to evaluating these applications.
Pretrial monitoring of arrestees. One major impetus of the
comprehensive-use strategy was the desire to identify an arrestee's
involvement with drugs as early as possible in criminal justice processing.
Encouragement from the Federal Government led in the 1980s to the
adoption of this type of dispositional drug testing in a number of cities and
other jurisdictions. Monitoring arrestees before trial has become a major
application of drug testing in the criminal justice system.
There is some evidence that the results of pretrial testing can predict
criminal behavior or other violations (such as failure to appear in court),
but that evidence is mixed.[7] Whatever the evidence, there are
nevertheless corollary benefits. Testing can produce information about
arrestee drug-use patterns and changes in preferences for drugs. In one
study of the efficacy of pretrial drug testing, the researcher concluded that
the information generated can be applied to planning comprehensive
testing and treatment programs.
Postconviction testing. Monitoring incarcerated offenders or people on
parole, probation, or other forms of community release is the other major
application of drug testing in criminal justice practice.
A specialized focus for postadjudication populations is the use of drug
testing in "intensive supervision probation" (ISP). In these programs
caseloads are reduced so as to enable probation officers to maintain closer
surveillance of, and work more closely with, each client. ISP has become a
popular mechanism for monitoring and controlling drug offenders in the
community.[8]
As with pretrial testing, testing within the context of ISP functions as a
diagnostic device as well as a possible deterrent to further drug use, at
least to the extent sanctions are applied. And as with pretrial drug testing,
postconviction testing may not produce the effects anticipated by program
designers. Several of the most important issues raised in ISP programs are
the increased demands placed on supervising officers to carry out the tests
and the costs of frequent testing. If a drug violation is detected, it demands
some type of response, which entails further costs. These limitations are
exacerbated by the general lack of treatment available for offenders under
court supervision. Nor have ISP programs yet proved successful in
reducing recidivism. Rather, they have been shown to increase technical
violations, which in turn increase the pressure on jails and prisons.[9]
Emerging technologies
Currently on the horizon are technological developments that represent
signal advances over urinalysis. These methods may have advantages
beyond cost effectiveness alone. For one thing, they offer the prospect of
being less invasive and intrusive than urinalysis. Perhaps more important,
these technologies may be able to detect emerging drugs of abuse. This
advantage alone would enable the criminal justice system to get ahead of
the curve in dealing with drug offenders by facilitating planning to allocate
resources to such areas as enforcement and treatment.
Hair analysis. Several major drugs of abuse, including cocaine, heroin, and
amphetamines, are rapidly excreted from the body via urine. This means
the ability of urinalysis to detect them is limited. Hair analysis has been
suggested as a supplement to urine testing because, by offering a longer
"window" of detection, and for other reasons, it makes evasion more
difficult. Because hair analysis can detect these currently popular drugs, it
can help the criminal justice system to keep up with changing drug-use
trends.
The scientific basis of hair analysis is the capacity of the growing hair to
absorb drugs and their metabolites (the products of the body's
metabolism). Once a metabolite is embedded in the hair shaft, it appears to
remain there almost permanently. Although washing and manipulation can
affect the concentration of drugs in hair, it does not appear that even
regular hygiene can remove enough of a drug to defeat a sensitive test. As
the hair shaft grows, it produces a linear record of the compounds
absorbed.
Some of the same techniques used in urinalysis are also used in hair
analysis. Both radioimmunoassay screen and GC/MS (chromatography)
can identify the presence of cocaine and heroin (as well as other
compounds) in hair.
Although hair testing is not as widely used in criminal justice practice as
urinalysis, it is attracting increased interest. That is especially true where
long-term drug trends are being evaluated, because of the wider window of
detection. Already, hair analysis has proved effective in several
applications, among them diagnosing and evaluating drug-use histories of
people in voluntary treatment programs, offenders in criminal
justice-based treatment programs, criminally involved youths, arrestees,
and probationers in ISP programs. When introduced in court as evidence
of drug use, the results of hair analysis have generally been upheld.[10]
Sweat patches. Since sweat is a mechanism for eliminating waste from the
body, it contains drugs and drug metabolites much like urine and can be
analyzed with similar technologies. But much time is needed to collect
quantities sufficient for analysis. The adhesive patch is a mechanism that
can overcome this problem because it is worn for an extended time before
being removed and subjected to analysis.
In the past few years, the patch has undergone a number of field trials that
in general have found it useful.[11] Studies have shown that it has some
distinct advantages, one of which is a longer window of detection than
urinalysis.[12] The technique is also less invasive than urinalysis, and the
patches are easier than urine samples to handle, ship, and store. An
obvious limitation is that it cannot detect past, long-term drug use.
Looming on the horizon are "smart patches," which conceptually are
similar to the standard patch but produce results instantly. Embedded
microelectronic chips create this advantage, and there may be others,
among them the ability to produce information such as the date on which
particular drugs were detected and the level of concentration. Smart
patches appear to hold great promise but have yet to be extensively field
tested.
Saliva testing. One of the most compelling aspects of saliva specimens is
that they are readily available, relatively simple to collect, and do not pose
problems of privacy and intrusion as does urine testing. Especially for
onsite applications such as field sobriety checks, this is a distinct
advantage. From a medical perspective, saliva collection is noninvasive, in
contrast to the collection of plasma and blood.
Although saliva has shown its utility in detecting drugs of abuse--it has
been used to identify cocaine[13] and cannabinoids[14]--its full potential
has still to be realized. One major disadvantage is that currently the
biological functions and attributes of saliva are not completely understood,
and for this reason researchers have recommended using it only in
conjunction with a more traditional specimen such as blood or urine.[15]
Multimodal testing: the ion mobility spectrometer. The ion mobility
spectrometer (IMS), which can be used in the field, is a highly automated
instrument for chemical analysis that shares some of the design and
operational characteristics of the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
instrument. Like GC/MS, it depends on separation of materials moving
through space to detect a unique marker or "fingerprint" uniquely
associated with a known chemical compound.
The primary advantages of IMS are that it is very sensitive, has high
analytic specificity, and can identify many compounds simultaneously and
rapidly. It also has the potential to test many different types of specimens,
including urine, hair, sweat, skin swab samples, saliva, and other materials
(such as pocket lint and clothing swatches). Because it can be programmed
for a variety of substances, it is relatively easy to adapt to newly emerging
drugs.
Recently, probation services in several jurisdictions have been using IMS
to monitor offenders or are actively exploring the technology for this
purpose. It is also used by a number of Federal agencies (for example, the
U.S. Customs Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug
Enforcement Administration) to detect drug traces on confiscated items or
search locations such as the holds of ships for evidence of contraband.
Although IMS appears to hold promise for drug monitoring, as with other
methods now being explored, there are limitations that need to be
overcome. For example, because the sensitivity of the technique may vary
with the type of substance tested, it may in some instances be too sensitive
and therefore unworkable.[16] For this reason it may, on balance, lack any
advantages over current methods.[17]
Policy challenges and the future of drug testing
The evolution of drug testing in criminal justice practice represents a
convergence of technological advances with several other factors:
changing levels and patterns of drug use, public concern, and the political
response. Each factor drives, to some extent, the shape of policies and
practices adopted in jails, parole and probation offices, juvenile justice
centers, and similar institutions. However, it is likely to be technology that
will play a critical role in creating possibilities for policy implementation.
Paradoxically, that also poses a problem, which is illustrated by the use of
drug testing to supervise drug offenders in the community. For this type of
use, researchers have observed that technology appears to have moved
faster than some agencies' ability to effectively use the information
generated.[18] It appears that technological innovations on the horizon for
drug testing will have the same effect--they will provide more
comprehensive and precise information about drug use while offering no
answers for how agencies can use the information.
Thus, although technical challenges still loom, the greater challenge will
be in the realm of policy. The question is how to respond to the enhanced
capability that will be made possible by forthcoming technical advances in
drug testing. Looking to the future, it would seem that serious thought
needs to be brought to the question: What is to be done with the
technology? That question is as important as any related to the
development of the technology itself.
Notes
1. "Screening" refers to the initial, rapid, first-pass test. When necessary,
the substance is then submitted to a second, more exacting, "confirmatory"
test using a different analytical procedure to verify the results of the first
test.
2. Dole, V., W.K. Kim, and I. Eglitis, "Detection of Narcotic Drugs,
Tranquilizers, Amphetamines, and Barbiturates in Urine," Journal of the
American Medical Association 198 (1966):349-352; Davidow, B., N.
LiPetri, and B. Quame, "A Thin-Layer Chromatographic Screening
Procedure for Detecting Drug Abuse," American Journal of Clinical
Pathology 50 (1968):714-819; and Heaton, A., and A. Blumberg,
"Thin-Layer Chromatographic Detection of Barbiturates, Narcotics and
Amphetamines in Urines of Patients Receiving Psychotropic Drugs,"
Journal of Chromatography 41 (1969):367.
3. Specificity refers to a test's exactness in identifying a chemical
compound. Thus, a test that can identify a compound as an opiate (a
general category of drugs) is less specific than one that can determine that
a compound is heroin (a specific type of opiate).
4. Ball, J., "Research Notes: The Reliability and Validity of Interviews
Obtained from 59 Narcotic Drug Addicts," American Journal of Sociology
72 (1967):650-654.
5. Page, W., et al., "Urinalysis Screened Versus Verbally Reported Drug
Use: The Identification of Discrepant Groups," International Journal of the
Addictions 12(4) (1977):439-450.
6. Wish, E., et al., Concordance Between Self-Reports of Drug Use and
Urinalysis Test Results From Active Unapprehended Criminals, New
York, New York: Narcotics and Drug Research, Inc., 1983.
7. Visher, C., "Using Drug Testing to Identify High-Risk Defendants on
Release: A Study in the District of Columbia," Journal of Criminal Justice
18 (1990):321-332; Visher, C., Pretrial Drug Testing, Research in Brief,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1992; Visher, C., "Pretrial Drug Testing: Panacea or Pandora's
Box?" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
521 (May 1992):112-131; and Rhodes, W., R. Hyatt, and P. Scheiman,
Predicting Pretrial Misconduct with Drug Tests of Arrestees: Evidence
from Six Sites, Research in Brief: Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1996.
8. Turner, S., J. Petersilia, and E. Deschenes, "The Implementation and
Effectiveness of Drug Testing in Community Supervision: Results of an
Experimental Evaluation," in Drugs and Crime: Evaluating Public Policy
Initiatives, ed. D. MacKenzie and C. Uchida, Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc., 1994.
9. Ibid.
10. McBay, A., "Legal Challenges to Testing Hair for Drugs: A Review,"
International Journal of Drug Testing 1(1) (1997):34-42.
11. Baer, J., and J. Booher, "The Patch: A New Alternative to Drug
Testing in the Criminal Justice System," Federal Probation 58(2)
(1994):29-33.
12. Ibid.
13. Cone, E., and W. Weddington, "Prolonged Occurrence of Cocaine in
Human Saliva and Urine after Chronic Use," Journal of Analytical
Toxicology 13 (1989):65-68.
14. Gross, S., et al., "Detection of Recent Cannabis by Saliva 9-THC
Radioimmunoassay," Journal of Analytical Toxicology 9 (1985):1-5.
Cannabinoids are the psychoactive ingredients in marijuana.
15. Hold, K., et al., "Saliva as an Analytical Tool in Toxicology,"
International Journal of Drug Testing 1(1) (1997):1-34.
16. A test that is too sensitive is one that may detect traces of material too
small to be confirmed by other processes or that under some conditions
may produce positive results only because of low-level background
contamination.
17. A complete treatment of IMS technology and its development can be
found in Eiceman, G., and Z. Karpas, Ion Mobility Spectrometry, Boca
Raton, Florida: CC Press, 1994.
18. Turner, Petersilia, and Deschenes, "The Implementation and
Effectiveness of Drug Testing in Community Supervision."
-------------------------------------------------------
Uses of Drug Testing in Criminal Justice Practice
Epidemiological analysis
Criminal justice agencies may test people in custody because they wish to
find out the incidence and prevalence of substance abuse. No attempt is
made to match the individuals tested with the test results, so there is no
punishment. The aggregated results can provide data for planning and
evaluation. A major example of this type of use is the Drug Use
Forecasting (DUF) program of the National Institute of Justice.[1]
Forensic testing
People in custody or under suspicion may be tested to find out whether
they have consumed a particular drug. The most familiar example is the
determination of whether someone operating a motor vehicle is "driving
under the influence" (DUI) of alcohol or intoxicating drugs. The results of
such forensic (evidentiary) testing can be used as evidence in criminal
proceedings. (For DUI suspects, field testing by breath analysis detects
blood alcohol levels, but for many of the popular drugs of abuse, no
functionally equivalent procedures are readily available.)
Diagnostic or dispositional testing
Drug testing may be conducted to evaluate the suitability of arrested or
incarcerated people for various dispositions or their eligibility for or
referral to particular types of detoxification or treatment. Such testing may
be done as part of an arrestee intake health screen, to determine which
people entering jail or prison currently are drug users, and what types they
use. The results may also be used to determine eligibility for specialized
programs such as drug courts, or for participation in diversion programs in
which charges are dropped if the offender meets the requirement of drug
abstinence.[2]
Arrestees who are released before further criminal processing may be
subjected to this type of testing. Pretrial testing includes the requirement
that continued drug use is grounds for revoking release.
Compliance monitoring
All people convicted of crime must submit to a drug test on demand. This
category includes those who are incarcerated, those who have been
convicted and released into the community on probation, and those on
other types of community release. For anyone under community
supervision, failure to maintain drug abstinence violates the terms of
release or probation.
There are several reasons for the use of drug testing to monitor abstinence
in this population. In the case of convicted offenders released into the
community, one important rationale is public safety. In addition, drug
testing may also help motivate offenders to desist from drug use simply
because they do not wish to risk their release status by failing a test.
Notes
1. Now in its 10th year, DUF tests arrestees in numerous urban areas
nationwide, using interviews and taking urine specimens. Recently
renamed Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), the program is being
expanded beyond the current 23 sites. Sampling procedures are being
refined, and the use of the data for conducting research into the
drugs-crime nexus will be expanded. See 1996 Drug Use Forecasting:
Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, Research Report,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, June 1997.
2. A good example of the use of drug testing to assess the needs and
monitor the behavior of drug-involved offenders is the New Orleans
Diversion Program. See Mieczkowski, Rosemary Mumm, and Harry F.
Connick, "The Use of Hair Analysis in a Pretrial Diversion Program in
New Orleans," International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology 39(3) (1995):222-241.
-------------------------------------------------------
THE UNREALIZED POTENTIAL OF DNA TESTING
by Victor Walter Weedn and John W. Hicks
Victor Walter Weedn, M.D., J.D., is Director of the Birmingham Regional
Crime Laboratory of the State of Alabama's Department of Forensic
Sciences. He was formerly the Program Manager of the U.S. Department
of Defense DNA Registry at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
John W. Hicks, M.P.A., formerly an Assistant Director of the FBI in
charge of the Laboratory Division, is Deputy Director of the Alabama
Department of Forensic Sciences.
Since before the turn of the century, at a time when Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle was spinning his tales of Sherlock Holmes, objective scientific
evidence has been routinely used to investigate crime. Today, although
most crimes continue to be solved through confessions and eyewitness
accounts, forensic evidence--most often drugs, fingerprints, firearms,
blood, and semen--has come increasingly to be used to establish the truth.
In the past few years alone, major technological advances have been made
in fingerprinting, the development of computerized fingerprint databases
and, perhaps most familiar because of recent sensational criminal cases,
DNA testing.
Advances in technology have helped DNA testing to become an
established part of criminal justice procedure. Despite early controversies
and challenges by defense attorneys, the admissibility of DNA test results
in the courtroom has become routine. More than 200 published court
opinions support this use, and DNA testing standards have been developed
and promulgated. Last year there were more than 17,000 cases involving
forensic DNA in this country alone. Questions about the validity and
reliability of forensic DNA test methods have essentially been addressed.
DNA's promise of using evidence invisible to the naked eye to positively
identify the perpetrator or exonerate the innocent suspect is being fulfilled.
Thanks to DNA, biological evidence is now used in new ways, and many
more sources of evidence are available than in the past. Yet the potential
of DNA may be greater than its accomplishments thus far. Realizing that
potential means first overcoming a number of limitations--in procedures
for testing DNA evidence and systems to collect and access DNA
information.
An enhanced role for biological evidence
As a result of the development of DNA testing, biological evidence--
evidence commonly recovered from crime scenes in the form of blood or
other body fluid--has taken on new significance. Traditional blood and
saliva testing have been rendered obsolete. DNA is found in these
substances and in fact in all body tissues and fluids. Because DNA testing
is more sensitive than traditional serologic methods and DNA is able to
withstand far harsher environmental insults, DNA testing may be
successful when traditional testing is not.
Because the DNA molecule is long lived, it is likely to be detectable for
many years in bones or body fluid stains from older criminal cases in
which questions of identity remain unresolved. The result is that DNA
testing applies to a vastly wider array of specimens than conventional
testing and is much more powerful in analyzing biological evidence than
any previous technology.
Expanding the range of evidence
Virtually all biological evidence found at crime scenes can be subjected to
DNA testing. At most crime scenes, there are many kinds of biological
evidence: not only blood and hair but also botanical, zoological, and other
types of substances.[1] Blood evidence was revealed in one study to be
found in 60 percent of murders and in a similar percentage of assaults and
batteries. Hair was found at the scene of 10 percent of robberies and 6
percent of residential burglaries.[2]
Multiple source. In this country DNA testing has been conducted primarily
in cases of sexual assaults from vaginal swabs and semen stains. By
contrast, in England the majority of DNA database matches involve
burglaries, with the evidence tested consisting of blood found at sites of
forced entry. Saliva, skin cells, bone, teeth, tissue, urine, feces, and a host
of other biological specimens, all of which may be found at crime scenes,
are also sources of DNA. Saliva may be found in chewing gum and on
cigarette butts, envelopes, and possibly drinking cups. Fingernail scrapings
from an assault victim or a broken fingernail left at the scene by the
perpetrator may also be useful DNA evidentiary specimens. Even hatbands
and other articles of clothing may yield DNA. DNA testing of urine is
becoming common to establish whether a particular individual is truly the
source of the specimen in which illegal drugs have been identified.
The array of evidence that can be found at crime scenes and subjected to
DNA testing suggests its unrealized potential. For despite the abundance
of evidence, and despite the advantages of DNA testing, little of this
evidence is recovered from crime scenes, less is submitted to crime labs,
and still less is analyzed. (See "Sexual Assault Cases: Need for More DNA
Processing.")
The potential for more sources. For certain kinds of DNA-laden biologic
evidence, the potential has yet to be fully explored. Hair cells are an
example. During a violent confrontation, hair may be transferred between
the victim and the perpetrator. Traditionally, forensic scientists have been
able to identify the source of this evidence on the basis of its general
appearance and structural features, but rarely has it been possible to
determine the source definitively. Because an individual's DNA may be
detectable in his or her hair, DNA testing technology is likely to change
substantially the significance and use of hair evidence.
The superficial skin cells that an individual sheds in the hundreds of
thousands every hour may be prevalent at crime scenes. Their presence
raises the possibility of subjecting such trace biological material to DNA
testing.
Recently researchers have reported that DNA can be recovered from
fingerprints, which are therefore another possible source of trace
specimens that may be valuable as evidence.[3]
Back to the future
The longevity of the DNA molecule means its power extends not just to
the present and future but also to the past. Specimens that in many cases
are years or even decades old--dating to the time when DNA testing
technology was not yet available--can be tested, resulting in overturned
convictions and release of the innocent.
The exoneration of Kirk Bloodsworth is an example of how the past was
revisited with DNA evidence. In this case a Baltimore court, using an
anonymous tip, identification from a police artist's sketch, eyewitness
statements, and other evidence, found Mr. Bloodsworth guilty of sexually
assaulting and murdering a young girl. Later he was retried and again
found guilty. But in 1993, more than 8 years after his arrest, prosecutors
compared DNA evidence from the victim's clothing to Mr. Bloodsworth's
and found the two did not match. He was subsequently released and then
pardoned.
As of this writing, dozens of other inmates have been released on the basis
of similar evidence. A number of examples of cases in which DNA testing
furnished new evidence that resulted in the release of people wrongly
convicted have been published.[4]
Limitations to overcome
The fact that much forensic biologic evidence remains unrecovered and
unanalyzed is only one obstacle to realizing the full potential of DNA
testing. Other limitations stem from lack of sufficient laboratory funding,
time-consuming testing methods, inability to test in the field, and the
challenges of automating DNA evidence databases. These problems are
serious, but new developments suggest they can be overcome.
Laboratory testing--funding low, processing slow. For the full potential of
DNA evidence to be realized, forensic laboratories must have resources
sufficient to test the evidence submitted to them. But laboratories are
notoriously underfunded, and many already face heavy backlogs of work.
Law enforcement agencies are often forced to distribute scarce resources
among a range of pressing needs, and the labs vie for funding in this
highly competitive environment.
Exacerbating this difficulty, and explaining why limited testing is done,
are the slow, costly testing methods currently used. Because they are so
time consuming, crime laboratories must prioritize cases to be processed
and specimens to test. It is not possible, given the deadlines imposed by
the needs of the courts, to analyze all potential evidentiary specimens
submitted. Thanks to the development of new methods of analysis,
however, crime laboratories' ability to process DNA evidence within a
reasonable time is expected to improve substantially within the next few
years. (See "In the Pipeline: New and Improved Testing Technologies.")
Field testing--being tested. Investigatory leads often grow cold within a
very short time after a crime is committed. Suspects vanish, witnesses
disperse, and potential physical evidence may persist for only a limited
time or may be disturbed in some way, even by normal activities.
Although faster processing in the laboratory is important, in many cases
the ability to secure critical information by field testing at the crime scene
might significantly enhance the likelihood of a successful resolution.
Field testing should not replace laboratory testing; instead it may
powerfully augment investigations conducted at crime scenes. It could be
used to screen potential DNA evidence specimens for those most likely to
produce results and, through preliminary analysis conducted at the scene,
to help develop investigative leads. Oral swabs could be used to collect
DNA samples from those willing to submit to the procedure. Of course,
more powerful, confirmatory testing in the controlled environment of the
laboratory should continue to be conducted to ensure absolute confidence
in the results. The role of preliminary analysis in the field would be to
eliminate certain individuals as suspects, arguably always a more
important role for DNA evidence than incrimination.[5]
Steps are now under way to realize the potential of field testing DNA
evidence. Recently, a truly portable microchip-based prototype
field-testing instrument has been developed.[6] The instrument, which
produces findings within 30 minutes, is currently being upgraded and
made available commercially. The National Institute of Justice is
sponsoring the development of other types of portable field instruments.
DNA databases--in their infancy. Without computerized searching and
without suspects, evidentiary testing, no matter how powerful, can do little
more than link crimes together and is of little use in solving them. In the
same way that fingerprint registries and then automated fingerprint
identification systems each dramatically enhanced the utility of fingerprint
evidence, the development of DNA databases and networks can
substantially augment DNA profiling.
Information in the database, which consists of DNA test results from
individuals convicted of certain categories of crime and DNA from the
scenes of unsolved crimes, can be compared to results of evidence
obtained at recent crime scenes to find associations. This creates DNA
databasing's greatest advantage: its use as an investigative tool in cases
where there are no suspects. However, jurisdictions must process
suspectless cases to produce "cold hits" (matches lacking previous leads).
Databanking in the United States is still limited, but as with testing
technologies, it continues to evolve.
The status of databanking
In the U.S. Today almost all States have legislation related to DNA
databanking, most of it focusing on collecting and testing DNA from
individuals convicted of sexual assaults and often homicides. In some
cases the legislation requires collection from all convicted felons.
Although DNA databanking was proposed almost 10 years ago, and
although databanking has been almost universally adopted at the State
level, the concept of its development in this country is still rudimentary.
The limitations are partly due to the definition of offender categories in the
legislation. For example, rapists who plead to a lesser offense not covered
by a particular State databanking law are therefore not subject to it.
Similarly, in some States DNA collection laws are inapplicable to
juveniles involved in the criminal justice system. In other instances DNA
is not collected until an offender is released, instead of at intake, making it
impossible to match the offender's DNA to that in a case opened during
incarceration. Other problems stem from lack of funding and the
incompatibility of the States' genetic testing systems. Of the 47 States that
have passed legislation, the program is operational in only 36, and of that
number most programs are severely backlogged.
In the U.K. Compared to the United States, the United Kingdom has
moved far more aggressively to establish a national DNA criminal
database. Specimens are collected from a wider range of offense categories
than the sexual assault category targeted by most State programs in the
United States. The number of DNA profiles entered thus far in the U.K. is
now nearly 200,000,[7] with an expected increase to more than 5 million
specimens in the next decade.
The U.K. has taken other steps to increase the utility of its database.
Specimens are taken upon arrest rather than, as in virtually all the States in
the United States, on conviction. In testing technology, the U.K. has
switched completely to automated STR, which is able to discriminate
among every man, woman, and child in the country. By contrast, most
databasing in the United States uses RFLP results. (For an explanation of
RFLP and related terms, see "A Primer of DNA Testing Technology.")
Laboratory processes in the U.K. have been streamlined and automated
and therefore are generally more efficient than those at the U.S. State
level.
The most important distinction between the two countries is that the U.K.
views databanking as a primary investigative tool. It is used, for example,
for "mass screens" or "intelligence-led screens," in which targeted
canvassing is conducted in a certain area or among a certain pool of
suspects. The approach has been used with great success: Since 1995 at
least 17 high-profile cases have been solved in this fashion.
Officials in the U.K. believe that their DNA testing program has actually
reduced overall law enforcement costs by eliminating extensive traditional
police investigations in some cases.
Toward a national system? Because the U.K. databanking system is based
nationally, it is central and uniform, not an aggregate of many different,
incompatible State systems. Our "patchwork" system is improving,
however, because of systems developed by the FBI, Federal support for
State DNA databanking, and the convergence of DNA typing methods.
The CODIS system (COmbined DNA Index System) is a national
investigative support database. Developed by the FBI, it is used in the
national (NDIS), State (SDIS), and local (LDIS) DNA Index System
networks to link the typing results from unsolved crime cases in multiple
jurisdictions or to those convicted of offenses specified in the DNA
databanking laws passed in 47 States. By alerting investigators to
similarities among unsolved crimes, CODIS can aid in apprehending
perpetrators who commit a series of crimes and in this way prevent other
offenses by the same person. The 77 laboratories in the 36 States
participating in CODIS have produced 126 case-to-case "hits" and 76
case-to-offender "hits."
For CODIS to work efficiently, all forensic laboratories must use reliable
and compatible DNA test systems so that data can be compared. To that
end the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
promotes uniform standards for forensic DNA testing and provides
Federal support to State and local law enforcement agencies to improve
their DNA testing capabilities so they can participate in CODIS.[8] Also,
to establish minimal compatibility among laboratories, the FBI has
promulgated a core set of RFLP genetic loci (specific places in DNA) and
will promulgate a core set of STR loci.
On the horizon
Improved testing technologies are ensuring more efficient and effective
DNA evidence processing, advances in technology and databanking
promise to widen the use of DNA evidence as an investigational tool, and
new sources of biologic evidence are being explored. Nevertheless, we are
still far from full realization of the potential of DNA testing. As
laboratories improve their ability to process DNA evidence quickly, and as
the courts' expectations of the use of DNA test results increases, there will
be greater emphasis on initial collection of evidence at the crime scene.
Initial collection of evidence is a key link in the chain of events leading to
successful testing, but it is also a vulnerable link. Currently the
groundwork is being prepared to strengthen specimen collection and
preservation, with more structured crime-scene teams and more formalized
evidence collection procedures being established in many jurisdictions.
The aim of these teams is to ensure that all potential evidence is recovered
and properly preserved for testing, and especially to minimize the
possibility of contamination.
Today much evidence is not retrieved, submitted to the lab, or analyzed.
Crime labs are neither adequately funded nor fully supported. Database
registries are not comprehensive and not fully utilized. People still get
away with murder. But if the potential of DNA testing can be fully
realized, their chances are likely to be greatly reduced.
Notes
1. Parker, B., and J. Peterson, "Physical Evidence Utilization," in The
Administration of Criminal Justice, Technology III, ed. S.I. Cohn and
W.B. McMahon, Chicago, Illinois: ITT Research Institute, 1970. This is
the only comprehensive study of physical evidence from crime scenes.
2. Ibid.
3. Van Oorschot, R.A.H., and M.K. Jones, "DNA Fingerprints From
Fingerprints," Nature 387 (1997):767.
4. Conners, Edward, et al., Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science:
Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After
Trial, Research Report, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, June 1996, NCJ 161258.
5. According to statistics from the FBI, the States, and crime laboratories
from other countries, DNA testing has excluded the named subject as the
source of the suspect DNA in about one-third of the cases received for
testing.
6. Belgrader, P.J., et al., "Rapid PCR Identity Testing Using a Battery-
Powered Miniature Thermal Cycler," Journal of Forensic Sciences (in
press); and Ibrahim, M.S., et al., "Real-Time Microchip PCR for Detecting
Single Base Differences in Viral and Human DNA," submitted to
Analytical Chemistry.
7. Personal communication with Lyn Fereday of the United Kingdom's
Forensic Science Service, Reading, England, July 15, 1997.
8. The aim of the DNA Identification Act of 1994, Title XXI of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime
Act), is to increase the capabilities and capacity of State and local forensic
laboratories to conduct DNA testing. In the first year, NIJ awarded $8.75
million to 31 States, $8 million of which was provided from the FBI.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sexual Assault Cases: Need for More DNA Processing[1]
Case processing of rapes could be improved if, in more instances, the
DNA evidence were submitted to laboratories and tested. Currently, in
only a relatively small proportion of all rape victimizations is DNA
recovered and tested. For DNA databasing of people convicted of sexual
assaults, the situation is similar: Samples are not collected, and many of
those that are collected are not tested.
A recent FBI survey revealed that of all rapes, less than half were solved
by the police and less than 10 percent were sent to crime laboratories. And
because crime laboratories are not able to work all cases submitted, in only
6 percent of the 250,000 rape cases was the recovered DNA tested, leaving
a backlog of several thousand cases awaiting processing (see below).
Of all convictions for sexual assaults (whether felonies or misdemeanors)
from which DNA collection is legislatively mandated for database
matching purposes, DNA was obtained from less than half the individuals,
and in less than one-third were the samples DNA typed (see below). This
proportion is an improvement over the past; however, of the overall,
cumulative number of DNA samples collected (452,000 in the 35 States
participating in CODIS), only 20 percent have been typed. Exacerbating
this limited databasing is that the mismatch between DNA typing systems
prevents comparison searches; for example, most casework is now
performed using PCR analysis, while RFLP typing is performed on the
vast majority of collected DNA database samples.
Fortunately, the situation is improving for rape cases: These low DNA
utilization rates represent a substantial increase in DNA testing over the
previous year (19 percent for DNA typing casework and 30 percent for
DNA databasing). However, for nonsexual assault crimes, DNA testing is
limited or in some cases even nonexistent.
Note
1. These data were presented by Stephen Niezgoda, CODIS Program
Manager, FBI, at the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors'
25th Annual Symposium on Crime Laboratory Development, San
Antonio, Texas, September 18, 1997. Data on number of rapes are from
the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey; the
other data are from the FBI's forthcoming 1997 CODIS Survey of DNA
Laboratories. The survey used information from the States for the period
January 1996 through June 1997, and projected data to the end of fiscal
year 1998.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the Pipeline: New and Improved Testing Technologies
More rapid processing of DNA evidence should be possible within the
next few years as a result of improvements in testing technology now
under way.
The first widespread use of DNA tests in the criminal justice community
involved RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) analysis,
which was informationally rich but took a long time--about 6 weeks.
Recent nonradioisotopic methods have considerably reduced the
turnaround time of RFLP. Nonetheless, it is anticipated that RFLP testing
will eventually be supplanted by PCR (polymerase chain reaction)-based
technology.
It takes only days to perform PCR-based dot/blots and, more recently,
STRs (short tandem repeats). Moreover, current STR marker sets produce
as much information as RFLP tests and can be used with extremely small
and degraded DNA specimens. STRs have only recently become
commercially available, but already they are anticipated to supersede less
informative dot/blot systems.
Developments that will further automate DNA analysis are being
developed as an outgrowth of the Human Genome Project.[1] These
include robots, microchip-based instrumentation, and mass spectrometry.
The run time of such instruments may be only minutes or even seconds.
Performance of 100 STR analyses within an hour using an automated mass
spectrometer has been demonstrated in a research setting.
Support for development of microchip and mass spectrometric work in
forensic DNA testing is being provided by the National Institute of Justice.
Today the resulting systems are in operation in only a few research
centers, but are likely to become commercially available in the next few
years.
1. The Human Genome Project (HPG) is an international, 15-year effort,
begun in 1990, to discover all the genes in the human body's DNA and
determine the complete sequence of DNA. A major focus of HPG is
development of automated technology for the sequencing process.
-------------------------------------------------------
A Primer of DNA Testing Technology
DNA is the chemical deoxyribonucleic acid, which stores the genetic code
of the human body--the hereditary blueprint imparted to us by our parents.
DNA is useful in forensics because it is present in all cells, is the same
throughout the body, and does not change in the course of a person's life.
Perhaps most important, for each individual (except identical twins) the
DNA sequence (the order of the DNA building blocks) is different,
making each person's DNA unique.
RFLP
The first type of forensic DNA test to be widely used by crime laboratories
was restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), based on the
variation among individuals in the length of the DNA fragments. In the
RFLP method, DNA is extracted and cut by an enzyme into restriction
fragments, which are suspended in a gel, divided up by size, and
transferred from the gel by blotting onto a membrane. In order for the
examiner to see the fragments, they are identified by radioactively labeled
probes, and the membrane is placed over an x-ray film. The radiation from
the probe exposes the film and produces a picture of the DNA fragments,
called an "autoradiogram."
A match is made when the patterns produced by DNA from an evidence
stain and those from a suspect's sample DNA are found to be the same. An
estimate of the statistical probability that this evidence is from the suspect
rather than someone selected at random is then calculated. RFLP is
powerful but is relatively insensitive, cannot be applied to degraded
specimens, and is tedious and time consuming, taking about 6 weeks.
More recently, to avoid the precautions needed to handle radioactive
samples and to speed processing time, other labeling systems have been
adopted, including chemiluminescent and fluorescent methods.
PCR
If a forensic sample is too small for RFLP testing or if the DNA is
degraded, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing may be used to obtain
a DNA typing result. PCR is a method of preparing samples in which the
targeted DNA is copied many times (amplified). Two DNA molecules are
produced from the original molecule; the procedure is repeated many
times with a doubling of DNA fragments every time. Eventually millions
of copies of a DNA sequence are produced. Although PCR is very
sensitive, permitting analysis of as little as a single copy of DNA, this
sensitivity also makes the sample susceptible to contamination. NIJ has
provided support for the development of PCR as well as RFLP testing
standards.[1]
Reverse dot/blots
The original application of PCR to DNA testing involved what is called
dot/blot analysis. In a given region of DNA, there is a finite number of
possible sequences ("alleles") between individuals, and a probe can be
developed to determine the alleles present. In reverse dot/blot analysis,
used by some forensic laboratories, amplified DNA binds to probes
attached to a membrane. Membrane strips produce a blue dot in the
presence of the bound, amplified DNA. Although these tests may be useful
in many circumstances, their discriminatory power is low compared to
other DNA typing methods, and one specimen may be contaminated with
DNA from another person.
STRs
It is possible to amplify regions of the DNA molecule that show variation
in DNA fragment length between individuals rather than using the RFLP
method of isolating and cutting out these regions. The forensic community
has found that smaller sets of fragments, called short tandem repeats
(STRs), are preferable for several technical reasons. The technique of
using STRs is easier and faster than RFLP, and the analysis can be
performed with a number of different automated and semiautomated
methods, such as capillary electrophoresis,[2] which is particularly rapid
and highly automated.
Notes
1. In cooperation with the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIJ has initiated
development of standards for the RFLP and PCR testing methods.
2.NIJ provided support for applying capillary electrophoresis to forensics.
-------------------------------------------------------
LOOKING BACKWARD TO LOOK FORWARD: THE 1967 CRIME
COMMISSION REPORT IN RETROSPECT
by Mark Moore
Mark H. Moore, Ph.D., is Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice
Policy and Management at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government. This article is an abridgment of the address he presented at
the closing of the symposium on the 30th anniversary of the President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice,
sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The address was a
synthesis of the symposium proceedings.
Thirty years ago, the report of the President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice was released. Entitled "The
Challenge of Crime in a Free Society," the report reflected the
Commission's leadership in setting forth a vision that was appropriate and
powerful for its time. In this symposium, held to commemorate
publication of the report, we have an opportunity to recommit ourselves to
a new set of purposes by drawing on the Commission's insights and
reshaping them from the perspectives of the changes that have occurred in
the intervening years.
Max Weber thought the crucial defining characteristic of a statesman or a
politician was passion--not the feckless variety characteristic of some
intellectuals, but the kind he described as including a "sense of
matter-of-fact," an ability to let the cold realities of a situation operate on
one's mind with inner calmness and concentration. What distinguished the
Commission was this kind of passion, "a passion for justice and
knowledge." It should animate us as well today.
The Commission's vision: better criminal justice in the context of a
commitment to social justice
The Crime Commission delivered two major messages. The first was an
operational theory of what society would have to do to produce an
effective and decent criminal justice system. The second was a larger idea
about what society would have to do to deal with crime. The two are not
the same. The Commission judged that the criminal justice system had to
be constructed, reformed, and developed in ways that would enable it to
deliver justice reliably and well. But in their view, this was not the only
requirement for controlling crime. To meet the "challenge of crime in a
free society," we had to work at producing social justice as well as
producing criminal justice.
Aside from this substantive vision of the Commission was the managerial
or implementation vision of how the processes and institutions of the
criminal justice system needed to be developed. These serve either to
implement whatever strategy is decided upon, or are a way of developing
and adopting a new idea if the old idea turns out to be inappropriate. I
want to first discuss the Commission's vision of the operational theory of
crime control through the justice system, and second to discuss the
managerial or process theory of what is needed to reform the criminal
justice system if not the social justice system.
Controlling crime, preserving liberty, ensuring fairness. The Commission
understood there were two important values to be preserved in criminal
justice system operations that might be in opposition to each other. On the
one hand is the goal of controlling crime, which could be achieved,
perhaps, if we were willing to expend a great deal of State authority and
reduce individual freedom. But the Commission was dead set against that
because they thought another important societal goal should be to
minimize the use of State authority. The Commission conceptualized the
value question as: How could we reduce crime while preserving freedom?
They understood that the goal of the system was to control crime with
justice, not simply control crime. Freedom and justice also meant a
sustained effort to expunge race and class bias from criminal justice
system operations.
Because the Commission's goal was to see that authority was invoked only
when justified, the operations of the criminal justice system had to be
reformed and reshaped. That meant being willing to take a loss in crime
control effectiveness. They then, I think, hoped to replace some of the
potentially lost effectiveness through greater efficiency in the operations
of the criminal justice system, through the application of scientific
management, and through more effective cooperation among the various
elements of the system.
The complementary role of social justice. In its report, the Commission
went on to say that although reform of the criminal justice system could
produce criminal justice, it would not necessarily control crime. The real
solution to the crime problem lay in the creation of social justice. The
Commission discussed the importance of providing education, recreation,
jobs, and strong families for kids as the way of controlling crime. Today,
we could go further in thinking about social justice, recognizing the needs
of adults as well as children. That might mean thinking about what to do
with adjudicated offenders, and it might also mean a special obligation to
concentrate on reducing racial disparities and the perception and reality of
racial discrimination. In short, in the Com-mission's view, it was important
to do social justice as well as criminal justice not only because social
justice is a good in itself, but also because it would strengthen the
performance of the criminal justice system.
In sum, the substantive vision of the Commission was to offer the Nation a
way to deal with its crime problem in a just and fair way that would
preserve liberty and realize the promise of democracy. In that vision, we
had to repair the criminal justice system and make it operate justly and
fairly, but we also had to repair the social system through a social justice
policy that would create the conditions under which the criminal justice
system could be both effective and fair.
A contemporary critique of the Crime Commission vision
Although in many respects the Com-mission's vision has stood the test of
time, from today's perspective it may perhaps be a too narrow or austere
view of criminal justice.
Criminal justice and just relationships. What we might want to consider is
that the institutions of the criminal justice system ought to be trying to
produce justice, not simply crime control within a context of restricting
civil liberties. That would mean, among other things, paying attention to
the rights of the defendant, and this was the part of justice on which the
Crime Commission focused our attention. It would also mean paying
attention to the rights--and the interests, and the feelings--of victims.
But there's an even more ambitious vision of justice. The idea of justice
isn't simply that we balance the defendant's rights against the victim's
rights in deciding what is a proportionate sentence. It is, instead, that the
courts do the work of restructuring relationships that have come apart. The
purpose of the many specialized courts--drug courts, family courts,
juvenile courts, the restorative justice processes--is to construct just
relationships. The aim is to do so not only among strangers (offenders and
victims), but also among more intimate groups--husbands and wives,
neighborhood merchants and the kids who victimized them, parents who
become estranged from their kids--to construct a whole set of social
relationships that ought to be guided and shaped by justice and mutual
responsibility and even love.
Government can't create love, but it can create the occasions in which
love--or tolerance, or obligation, or duty--might be rediscovered. It may be
that this is the important idea of justice that we would try to build into a
justice system--a "thicker," more substantial concept of justice than the
guarantee of due process rights of victims and offenders.
It's easiest to imagine that the relationship the criminal justice system is
trying to construct is best described in due process terms when we're
talking about relationships between offenders and victims who don't know
one another. But I would argue that even this is too abstract and attenuated
a view of these relationships, let alone of relationships between victims
and offenders who are intimates. We need to be reminded that all
offenders--or most of them--come back to the community. In other words,
our relationship with them will be ongoing.
People with the type of passion Weber recommended might recognize this,
but it flies in the face of two common fantasies about the criminal justice
system, which I'll call the Right Fantasy and the Left Fantasy. In the Right
Fantasy, when people commit crime, we can end our relationship with
them either by locking them up and throwing away the key or by
executing them. In the Left Fantasy, when people commit crime, it gives
us an opportunity to supply them with enough services to turn them into
the person they always wanted to be.
In some sense, both those fantasies are deeply flawed. The reality is that
we are going to be locked into a long-term relationship with offenders. So
we might want to ask, "What kind of a relationship do we want to have?"
That is a very different way of asking the question, "What are we trying to
do with criminal justice dispositions?" We are asking what would be a just
relationship for us to have, as well as what relationship would achieve
some practical goals in controlling crime.
Partnerships across boundaries. The Commission held the view that it was
important for each institution to get outside its boundaries and see itself as
interacting with other institutions in broader systems. That was an
important idea. But the interactions that the Commission highlighted were
those of the agencies within the criminal justice system. Thus, police had
to interact with prosecutors, prosecutors had to interact with courts, courts
had to interact with correctional institutions, and so forth.
The key relationships missing from the Commission's view were those
with other governmental units--child welfare, parks and recreation, the
public education system--and those with the communities that would be
necessary to animate and give weight and power to an emerging
conception of a justice system that wanted to produce "thick" justice rather
than the austere sort.
In working with victims and offenders, and particularly with children, we
need to foster naturally occurring systems of support outside the justice
system. For example, in criminal justice institutions like drug courts, we
need to bring in parents, coworkers, and supervisors and engage them in
the process of controlling the behavior of the offender and helping him or
her stay off drugs. We are reaching into informal systems of control,
support, and assistance, using the apparatus of the criminal justice system
to mobilize and shape that particular kind of control.
The criminal justice system as a support to social justice. My third point
about the Crime Commission's substantive vision is that it did not include
the idea that criminal justice system operations might support the
construction of conditions that could lead to social justice. Of course, it
would be easy to overestimate the extent to which the institutions of the
criminal justice system could do this. But it would also be a mistake, I
think, not to recognize the contribution these institutions could make.
To understand this, we need to think not only of crime as the result of
social injustice, but also of crime control as a means to the end of
producing social justice. Some might object to this on grounds that we
would be attempting to execute social policy by creating new criminal
liability and thus a new responsibility for the criminal justice system. An
example is the prospect of criminalizing attacks of parents against children
in the same way we have criminalized attacks of men against women in
the context of domestic violence. To criminalize such acts could be
perceived as wrong because it is an inappropriate use of State power or it
is an imprudent use of State power. But the fact is we do not know
whether it would be wrong. If it were wrong in either respect, then that
might create an opportunity for the criminal justice system to support what
had previously been considered an important goal of social policy: to
produce safe families. In the Commission report, there was no suggestion
that the criminal justice system as a whole could support and help further
the goals of the social justice system beyond providing a tolerably just and
effective response to those who had committed offenses.
Crime prevention. It is significant, I think, that the first chapter of the
Crime Commission's report was about prevention. But what I think is
quite interesting is that we have a very broad juxtaposition of different
systems of prevention. According to the prevention theory associated with
criminal justice operations, we can prevent crime (if not the first, at least
many subsequent crimes) through deterrence, incapacitation, and
rehabilitation. We might even prevent an offender's first offense if general
deterrence works.
At the other extreme is a social justice theory of prevention. It holds that if
we extended great opportunities to both children and adults to live
profitably and well and if we lived up to the promise of equality of
opportunity, fewer people would wish to become offenders, would choose
to become offenders, or would feel motivated to become offenders. So we
have criminal justice prevention on the one hand (reactive, with extensive
use of State authority) and the social justice theory of prevention on the
other (anticipatory, hopeful, accepting of our broader responsibilities to
society at large, holding open the possibility of realizing a society we'd all
like to be part of). Those are the two ideas of prevention presented in the
Commission report.
How much space is there between those different ideas of prevention and
how much of that space have we explored at this stage to find effective
crime prevention techniques? By way of an answer, let me start from the
Right end, with the "spare" deterrence--incapacitation and rehabilitation--
of professional criminal justice agencies. To find another kind of
prevention, you could take one step over and discover that a great deal of
what is celebrated as important preventive techniques I would describe as
"thick" deterrence. It functions the way mentors function. You behave
when your mentor is sitting next to you, partly because he or she is sitting
next to you. You may have impulses to break loose, but with your mentor
next to you, you know where your duty lies. There's a concept of support
in that closeness, but there's also control.
Let me explain how "thick" deterrence might be applied to handling
persistent minor offenders. They are a very difficult problem in the
criminal justice system; their persistence makes it hard to ignore the fact
that they're leaving behind a string of victims. On the other hand, their
offenses aren't very serious, so it doesn't seem appropriate to sever our
relationship to them by either life imprisonment or execution. I recall
watching James Vorenberg, a member of the Crime Commission (who is
here today), on television shortly after publication of the Commission
report, talking about this type of offender. He said, "There are just some
people who need a leash." That is the picture of "thick" deterrence:
prevention different from probation and also different from incapacitation.
Another idea of prevention, much discussed recently, is "situational crime
prevention": reducing the opportunities to commit offenses. Some portion
of that idea lies in making less property available to be stolen. But another
part is trying to reduce the number of occasions in which people will be
provoked into committing crime. Once again, we begin thinking about
relationships--as potentially criminogenic and needing to be fixed as a way
to block the opportunity for future offending. Those relationships are in
domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, crimes committed among
gangs, and even hate crimes. All acquire their meaning and motivation
through relationships, not through the acquisition of property. If the courts
and other parts of the criminal justice system are in the business of
reconstructing relationships, they may be able to reduce these crimes.
Notice what I'm doing is edging over to the categories of prevention that
eventually reach the "root causes of crime" approach to prevention. The
one step remaining before I get there is the concept of prevention most
popular in our symposium discussion: as an interruption of the trajectories
of children headed toward future criminal offending. A number of
researchers have demonstrated the possibility of intervening early in
children's development to deflect them from careers of criminal offending.
In sum, the point I wish to make is that there is a general concept of
prevention, widely and enthusiastically embraced for a long time. In order
for that concept to become operational, we have to have a much more
differentiated and clear picture of prevention; more specifically, which
notions of prevention I've talked about are included in the general idea. In
the recent crime control debate, one of the sadder aspects is the loss of an
argument about crime prevention. A truly distinctive aspect of the Clinton
administration's approach to crime was its willingness to emphasize
prevention of a particular type and to include it in Federal crime
legislation. The constraints subsequently placed on this idea have been
disappointing. The argument that the Crime Commission set us up to be
able to make was recently lost, and I think we need to reclaim some of that
terrain.
Institutions and processes
Some of the Crime Commission's views of criminal justice processes and
institutions might also be altered in our contemporary view.
Effective policymaking. In our symposium discussions, we spent a lot of
time talking about effective policy-making. We espoused an idea of
policymaking guided by data and knowledge rather than ideology and base
passion--guided by a sort of Weberian approach to passion. And yet today
in a panel of policymakers, the dominant theme was the importance of
righteous anger, "craziness," "the glint in the eye." The panel supported
my belief that it is wrong to imagine effective policymaking as devoid of
passion, anger, craziness. Passions are going to be there inevitably, so you
might as well understand that we could use them, not just deplore them
and try to expunge them.
What excites people's passions, I think, are their values--the images of
justice that they'd like to see translated into action. The anger that comes
from indignation, from being badly treated, from the sense of being part of
an unjust system turns out to be enormously useful in mobilizing oneself
and others to take a particular action. Values associated with conceptions
of justice are important in driving reforms. As a purely logical matter, one
cannot decide what to do simply on the basis of fact. You have to have the
fact attached to a value. From there the question becomes a political
matter, when we determine what are the values that we care about, in the
operation of the criminal justice system or in the organization of society.
In much of its work, the Commission focused on empirical questions of
what works. But I think a lot of what animated enthusiasm for the
Commission's vision of social justice (and criminal justice) was an idea
about justice and about what society wanted and expected as justice. The
Commission's view was based on a normative appeal to an ideal. I think
today we have a different normative idea of what constitutes justice in this
country than we had earlier. I do not believe this idea will be rooted out
only by additional facts but by a different argument about values, about
the kind of society we want to be, and about the kind of justice we want.
The central research and development model. I want to say one word
about what I describe as the central R&D model. I think for a long time
our picture of the way knowledge enters criminal justice
decisionmaking/policymaking was a picture of academics working hand in
glove with the Federal Government to develop ideas, to test them, and,
once they were proven to work, to disseminate them. A lot of our justice
institutions were set up with that kind of understanding, and for a long
time I believed in this model.
The difficulty is I have never seen it work. What I've learned in 20 to 30
years of trying to interact with the world and make what contributions I
can is that I am usually behind the best practitioners. The practitioners
who are facing the problems are often doing what I haven't thought of.
Often my job as an academic is to scurry around behind them and explain
to everybody else why what they're doing is interesting.
The Crime Commission's contribution to leadership. I do believe the
Crime Commission defined the forms of professionalism we have today
and established the basis for the development of talented professionals in
the criminal justice field. A lot of the imagination and brains, the glints in
the eye, and the creativity and "craziness" necessary to find solutions to
today's problems are now within the practice field, not just in academia.
That is an enormous asset.
All of us who benefited from the educational programs created by the
Commission (myself included) grew up with the legacy of the
Commission--the spirit of authorization, the pursuit of justice, the quest
for knowledge. All of us felt we had the opportunity to imagine and to
work out for ourselves what it meant to produce justice. There are at least
three concepts of professionalization--technically competent people,
people committed to the right values, and people who feel authorized to
imagine and act in their particular location to deal with the problems they
see right in front of them. What we heard in our discussions today is
recognition of the decentralization and spread of leadership in criminal
justice. Leadership now comes not just from national commissions but
also from those in the field in all the Nation's communities. The
authorization to experiment, to do the work, has spread very widely, and it
is due largely to the impetus provided by the Commission.
Building on the Commission's work
The Commission reminded us of some important values to guide us in
reforming the criminal justice system, controlling crime, and
reconstructing society. Those values included respect for individual rights;
the determination to protect liberty and to use State authority sparingly;
the ambition to ensure that when we use State authority we do so fairly;
and the necessity of acting outside the criminal justice system to produce
social justice as well as a certain kind of criminal justice. That was the
course the Commission set us on, and it was the right course.
Today's course involves producing justice and constructing relationships,
in addition to protecting freedoms. It includes engaging communities and
government agencies as well as ensuring fairness by operating across the
criminal justice system. It means using the criminal justice system to
strengthen the institutions that supply social justice as well as using it to
control crime. And it means a more intense and differentiated focus on
prevention as well as on control.
The final legacy of the Crime Commission, and the one that has made us
feel the saddest, involves social justice. As I've stated, part of the
Commission's teaching was the importance of producing social justice as
well as criminal justice. I think a lot of the pain we have felt during this
symposium comes from our awareness of society's retreat from its
commitment to producing social justice. Part of the pain comes from the
fact that as society has retreated from this commitment, criminal justice
institutions are given more rather than fewer resources. Thus, those of us
who work in the criminal justice system find our lives enriched while the
rest of society and its other institutions are shrinking. This violates what
we think is true and important about how society ought to be constructed. I
am here, energized, animated, excited about the prospects of using
criminal justice institutions to contribute to society, at precisely the same
time as the other institutions key to achieving what we want to achieve as
a society are being cut back deeply.
So I come out of this symposium with the excitement and enthusiasm that
come from working on institutions I care about deeply and that I think are
socially important and valuable. At the same time, I end this meeting with
a profound sense of shame and regret about the failure of society to attend
to the other important teaching of the Crime Commission report: Without
social justice, ultimately, there can be no criminal justice.
-------------------------------------------------------
"The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society"--30 Years Later
Impelled by the high level of public concern about crime in the 1960s,
President Lyndon Baines Johnson ordered the establishment of the
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, whose mission was to examine "every facet of crime and law
enforcement in America." The results of that examination, which covered
the nature and amount of crime and crime trends in America, were
published in 1967 as "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society." The
Commission's work laid the foundation for the current Federal role in
assisting State and local law enforcement and justice administration. The
Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs evolved from predecessor
organizations created as a result of the Commission.
In a retrospective held in June 1997, prominent criminologists;
professionals and practitioners from law enforcement, the courts, and
corrections; Federal and State officials; and members of the Commission
staff convened in a symposium to commemorate the landmark report.
They assessed the reach of change that has occurred in the intervening
years, focusing on the outcome of the Commission's recommendations.
The symposium, whose theme was "looking backward, looking forward,"
was sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), its constituent
bureaus, and the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. Participants examined changes in the nature of crime
and the criminal justice system, in the use of research and statistics, and in
the societal response to crime and the criminal justice system.
A publication based on the symposium papers, including the full address
by Mark Moore, who synthesized the proceedings, is now being prepared
by OJP.
-------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH PREVIEW
Comparing Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities
A summary of research conducted by K. Jack Riley under the joint
auspices of the National Institute of Justice and the Office of National
Drug Control Policy
This research study was designed to elicit information on practical issues
and policy implications of different drug market patterns. Information
derived from the study can help policymakers identify factors that affect
the availability of narcotics by providing insights on how drug market
participation differs and how users and markets are affected by certain
conditions.
Because the cities selected for the study were chosen for their high heroin
prevalence, and because the sample consisted entirely of individuals who
had been arrested, study findings cannot be generalized to other cities or to
other populations. It is highly likely, in fact, that the drug use and
procurement patterns of users in other cities--as well as of users in the
study cities who have not been arrested--are very different from those of
the study participants.
In 1993 and 1994 (prior to this study) the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP) demonstrated that various features of heroin market
activity, including the length of time it takes users to locate and purchase
the drug, could be researched through interviews with drug users and that
such interviews could provide policy-relevant data. In 1995 ONDCP, in
collaboration with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), extended this
analysis to include two additional drugs--powder cocaine and crack
cocaine. The extended analysis, known as the procurement study, was
executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program
(now known as the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program) and
explored additional features of drug market participation, both within and
across drug types and within and across cities.
Study methods
The DUF interview has fewer than 30 questions and is conducted with
recent arrestees in 23 cities nationwide. It provides major demographic
and descriptive data, including age, gender, race or ethnicity, level of
education, living arrangements, source and amount of income, marital
status, drug treatment history, and recent criminal behavior. A drug test is
used to validate self-reports of recent drug use. The procurement study
selected six DUF sites noted for having a high heroin prevalence: Chicago;
Manhattan; Portland, Oregon; San Antonio; San Diego; and Washington,
D.C. DUF participants who had reported using powder, crack, or heroin
within the previous 30 days were eligible for the procurement study. Of
the 8,981 individuals who participated in DUF during the study period
(from the third quarter of 1995 through the second quarter of 1996), more
than 2,900 were eligible for the procurement study and 2,056 were
interviewed.
The procurement interview consisted of approximately 100 questions and
collected data on both drug purchase patterns and drug use patterns. The
purchase pattern questions addressed such issues as the proximity of drug
purchases to home and neighborhood, frequency of purchases, and source
of income for purchases. Usage questions focused on the amount and type
of narcotics typically used, frequency of use and cessation, and polydrug
use patterns.
A portrait of drug users
Drug use among white and Hispanic interviewees was relatively evenly
distributed across the powder cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, and
combination heroin (that is, heroin and powder or heroin and crack)
markets, regardless of whether the respondent was held on drug or
nondrug charges. The researchers found that blacks, whether arrested on
drug or nondrug charges, primarily reported using crack cocaine.
Crack users generally reported living in shelters or on the streets more
frequently than did other drug users. For example, 12 percent of crack
users in Chicago reported that they had been on the street or in a shelter
prior to arrest, compared with only 4 percent of heroin users; none of the
powder cocaine users reported street or shelter living. A substantial
percentage of respondents, across all drug categories, reported that public
assistance was their primary form of income. Powder users were generally
more likely to report that they were employed, either full time or part time.
Drug purchase patterns
Crack users reported having more extensive dealer networks than either
powder users or heroin users. Furthermore, both heroin users and powder
users were more likely to report using a main source (one dealer from
whom they usually make their purchases) than were crack users.
Most crack cocaine and heroin transactions in the cities studied occurred
outdoors, and they were more likely than powder transactions to have
taken place in the user's own neighborhood. Powder purchases were
typically made outdoors with less frequency than either crack or heroin
transactions. Fewer than half of the powder purchases occurred in the
user's own neighborhood. Two cities--Chicago and Washington--had
predominantly outdoor markets; in Washington, for example, the majority
of all three drugs were sold outdoors. The majority of indoor transactions
took place in residences; powder cocaine was purchased in business
establishments more frequently than either heroin or crack.
Many (although not most) of the respondents reported that they had been
unable to complete a narcotics purchase at least once in the year prior to
arrest. The two most common reasons for failed transactions were inability
to locate a dealer and the dealer not having a supply, except in Manhattan.
In Manhattan, 64 percent of crack users, 55 percent of heroin users, and 38
percent of powder cocaine users reported that police activity impeded their
drug transactions. Even so, a large majority of users in each city reported
having made at least one drug purchase in the week prior to their arrest.
Powder cocaine users reported the fewest number of transactions in that
week, and heroin and crack users reported the highest number.
Drug use patterns
Participants in the procurement study were highly likely to test positive for
drugs, indicating that they had used narcotics in the 72 hours before arrest.
In all sites, 90 percent of those who said they had used crack in the past 30
days tested positive for cocaine, and more than 75 percent of those who
said they had used heroin in the past 30 days tested positive for opiates.
Between half and three-quarters of heroin respondents described
themselves as daily users; in contrast, between 10 percent and 40 percent
of powder cocaine respondents said they were daily users. The percentage
of crack respondents describing themselves as daily users consistently fell
between that of powder and heroin respondents, ranging from 32
percent (in Chicago) to 53 percent (in Manhattan).
In spite of the daily use reports, a substantial number of respondents in all
categories reported that they had a 30-day period of abstinence in the 90
days prior to arrest. In Manhattan, for example, 31 percent of crack users
and 13 percent of heroin users reported such a period. Many of these
people (27 percent of crack users and 31 percent of heroin users) reported
that periods of abstinence were part of their regular pattern. Other
commonly cited reasons for nonuse included lack of money, enrollment in
treatment programs, and being "tired of [the drug] life."
Policy implications
The results of the procurement study suggest that the markets for powder,
crack, and heroin differ from one another significantly in a number of
ways, including purchase and use practices. The findings indicate that
detailed information about drug habits and patterns would be a valuable
tool for local law enforcement officials and service providers. For
example, crack cocaine stands out for its significant exposure to law
enforcement intervention because of the frequency with which users
purchase the drug outdoors and rely on extensive networks of dealers. In
addition, the study results suggest that interviewing the arrestee population
is an appropriate method for exploring motivations for drug use and the
consequences of policy interventions.
-------------------------------------------------------
This analysis was conducted by K. Jack Riley, Ph.D., under the joint
auspices of the National Institute of Justice and the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Dr. Riley is director of the Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring program at NIJ. ONDCP provided the resources to fund
the project. Staff of BOTEC Analysis Corporation were instrumental in
designing the interview instrument, conducting training, and cleaning and
preparing the data. This summary is based on the report Crack, Powder
Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six U.S. Cities,
available in December 1997 from the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service. Ask for NCJ 167265.
-------------------------------------------------------
Points of view in this document do not necessarily represent the official
position of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Office of National Drug
Control Policy.
FS 000196
-------------------------------------------------------
EVENTS
Date set for international land transportation security technology
conference
In partnership with the U.S. Department of Transportation, and in
cooperation with the Department of State, the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) will sponsor a conference on technologies developed primarily for
use by law enforcement that also can be applied to land transportation
security against terrorism. The conference will be held in Atlanta, Georgia,
April 7-9, 1998. Information can be obtained from conference organizer
Jim Scutt of Eagan, McAllister and Associates, 703-820-8707, ext. 227.
Restorative justice--final in the series of regional symposiums
Restorative justice is a promising approach to criminal justice that takes a
critical look at the current retributive system of justice and proposes to
integrate crime victims--whether individuals or communities--into the
system and also meet the need for offender accountability. Last year NIJ,
with other Office of Justice Programs components and the National
Institute of Corrections, sponsored a national symposium in which
policymakers and practitioners explored the topic. A series of five
followup, regional symposiums are being held to examine restorative
justice in more depth; the last will be taking place in Austin, Texas,
January 11-13, 1998. In addition to Texas, the region covered includes
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. For more information,
contact the Institute for Law and Justice at 703-684-5300.
Law enforcement technology showcased at NIJ Summer Institute
The latest advances in technology available for law enforcement were
presented at NIJ's Summer Institute for Law Enforcement Technology.
The participants, all of whom were officers involved in promoting the use
of technology in their departments, represented a cross-section of the
Nation's police and sheriff's departments and other enforcement agencies.
They came to Washington, D.C., for a week in August 1997 to present
what they felt were the successes (and failures) of technologies they have
adopted and to find out what other law enforcement agencies are using and
with what success. Representatives from NIJ and several Federal agencies,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (ATF), briefed participants on technologies now being
developed and used at the Federal level.
Participants' technology needs were fairly consistent from agency to
agency: They were interested in ways to stop fleeing vehicles, means to
limit the effect of bombs, methods for developing statewide
information-sharing networks, software for documenting crimes, better
systems to communicate among individual officers in vehicles as well as
at the department level, and ways to facilitate officer training. NIJ's Office
of Science and Technology has been working in several of these areas to
develop new technologies or adapt already existing technologies for law
enforcement. One of the most beneficial aspects of the Institute was the
opportunity for participants to assist each other in resolving problems
during the "Peer Review Problem Solving" session.
The Summer Institute is the first of what NIJ plans as an annual event that
will foster information exchange among local, county, and State
enforcement agencies, as well as feature briefings on developments at the
Federal level. Information may be obtained from Kevin Jackson, Acting
Director of NIJ's Technology Assistance Division, which administers the
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers. He can
be reached at 202-307-2956, or by e-mail at jacksonk@ojp.usdoj.gov.
Crime mapping--NIJ holds forum for exchanging information
Law enforcement officers, crime analysts, geographers, researchers, and
other criminal justice practitioners convened in Denver this fall to share
information about how computerized crime mapping can aid both in
controlling crime and in conducting criminological research. The
conference, sponsored by NIJ's new Crime Mapping Research Center
(CMRC), drew approximately 400 participants, who spent 3 days learning
about the best mapping practices in law enforcement, the use of GIS
(Geographic Information Systems) in community policing, and how law
enforcement agencies can work with researchers in using crime mapping.
Workshops on introductory and advanced GIS, cartography, and spatial
and temporal analysis of crime patterns were held as learning sessions for
participants.
Over the past decade, the criminal justice community has begun to reap
the valuable analytic benefits of GIS technology. This powerful tool
enhances the ability of researchers and practitioners to identify hot spots of
criminal activity and analyze the complex spatial patterns of crime and
criminal behavior. NIJ established the Crime Mapping Research Center in
1996 to promote research, evaluation, development, and dissemination of
GIS technology for criminal justice applications.
A summary of the conference, which NIJ plans to hold annually, is
available online at www.nlectc.org/cmrc. For more information about this
or other Center activities, write to the National Institute of Justice, 810
Seventh Street N.W., Washington, DC 20531; or send an e-mail to
CMRC@ojp.usdoj.gov. An electronic listserv, "Crimemap," is available to
those interested in online discussions about computerized mapping
technologies as they are used in criminal justice activities. To subscribe,
send an e-mail message to listproc@aspensys.com, leave the subject line
blank, and in the body of the message type: subscribe crimemap .
The "Crack Decade" in perspective
The response to the crack cocaine epidemic of the past decade was
reviewed recently in a conference sponsored by NIJ and the National
Institute on Drug Abuse. Titled "The Crack Decade: Research
Perspectives and Lessons Learned," the November 4-5 conference, held in
Baltimore, attracted some 100 participants, among them researchers in
criminology and public health as well as policymakers, community
leaders, and representatives of the press. Featured speakers included
eminent researchers David Musto and Peter Reuter. The responses of
researchers in criminal justice and public health and of law enforcement,
the community, and the media were reviewed, and future research needs
were explored in depth. NIJ plans to publish the proceedings of the
conference.
-------------------------------------------------------
NIJ IN THE JOURNALS
The following articles are based on studies sponsored by NIJ. Copies are
available on loan from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS); in some cases photocopies may be obtained. For information on
availability, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420; or send an Internet e-mail to
askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Please cite accession number.
"Effect of Weather and Temporal Variations on Calls for Police Service,"
American Journal of Police 15(1)(1996):23-43, by E.G. Cohn, grant
number 86-IJ-CX-0037, accession number (ACCN) 165844. This article
discusses the results of research into short-term variations in police service
calls during 1985, 1987, and 1988 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, based on
weather changes and time of day. Findings indicate that the time of day as
well as the day of the week or the month were the best indicators of the
number of calls to the police. Police service calls increased during
afternoon and evening hours, on weekends, in the spring and summer
months, and at night.
"Gang Violence in Chinatown," by K.-L. Chin, in Gangs in America, 2d
ed. (1996), grant number 89-IJ-CX-0021, ACCN 165304. This article,
which reports the findings of a study of 62 former or active members of
Chinese gangs, examines the extent of gang violence in New York City's
Chinatown. Findings show that intergang violence was the most common
type of violence, with drug use, drug trafficking, protection rackets, and
community politics appearing to have little influence on gang violence in
the area studied.
"Measurement of Children's Exposure to Violence: A Rasch Analysis,"
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 6(161)(1996): 1-
8, by D.J. Kindlon et al., grant number 93-IJ-CX-K005, ACCN 165450.
The authors interviewed individuals about their exposure to violence and
subjected their responses to a measure of exposure called the Rasch model.
Findings indicate models such as Rasch may be applied to other
multi-item assessments of social behavior and experience.
"Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective
Efficacy," Science 277(August 15, 1997):1-7, by Robert J. Sampson,
Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls, grant number 93-IJ-CX-K005,
ACCN 167257. A report from the Project on Human Development in
Chicago Neighborhoods reveals lower rates of violence in urban
neighborhoods characterized by "collective efficacy." The Project is a
long-term study, sponsored by NIJ, the MacArthur Foundation, the U.S.
Department of Education, and the National Institute of Mental Health, that
is identifying the antecedents to violence in several thousand children and
young adults living in 80 Chicago neighborhoods. The researchers
examined mutual trust and willingness to intervene in supervising children
and maintaining public order (which they term collective efficacy) rather
than such traditionally investigated factors as poverty and ethnicity. They
found that neighborhoods characterized by these measures of social
cohesion tend to have lower levels of crime, although they caution that the
recognition that this factor matters does not imply that social inequalities
can be neglected.
"Psychopathy and Violent Behaviour in Abused and Neglected Young
Adults," Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 6(3)(1996):253-271, by
B.L. Weiler and C.S. Widom, grant numbers RO1-MH49467, 86-IJ-CX-
0033, 89-IJ-CX-0007, and 93-IJ-CX-0031, ACCN 165719. This article
discusses the findings of a study of abused and neglected individuals who
suffered childhood physical and sexual abuse and/or neglect in a
metropolitan area of the Midwestern United States. Findings reveal a clear
connection between early childhood victimization and psychopathy and
suggest that the relationship between childhood victimization and violence
in some individuals may be mediated through psychotherapy.
"Risk Factors Associated With Recidivism Among Extrafamilial Child
Molesters," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
65(1)(1997):141-149, by R.A. Prentky, R.A. Knight, and A.F.S. Lee, grant
numbers 92-IJ-CX-K032 and 94-IJ-CX-0031, ACCN 165738. The authors
examine followup data on more than 100 child molesters discharged from
the Massachusetts Treatment Center between 1960 and 1984 to assess the
ability of these factors to predict the risk for recidivism. They conclude
that juvenile and adult antisocial behavior, paraphilia, and low amount of
contact with children predicted nonsexual victim-involved and violent
recidivism.
Also of interest:
"Clinical and Actuarial Predictions of Violence," by John Monahan, in
Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony,
vol. 1, ed. D. Faigman et al., St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing
Company, 1997:300-318, ACCN 167258.
The study investigates the relationship between mental disorder and
violence. The researcher found that whether the measure is the prevalence
of violence among the disordered or the prevalence of disorder among the
violent, and whether the people studied are those selected for treatment as
inmates or patients in institutions or people randomly chosen from the
community, there appears to be a greater-than-chance relationship between
mental disorder and violence. However, the researcher cautions that none
of the data support sensationalized caricatures of the mentally disordered
or the shunning of former patients. Moreover, compared to the magnitude
of risk from the combination of male gender, youth, and substance abuse,
for example, the risk of violence presented by mental disorder is modest.
-------------------------------------------------------
RECENT NIJ PUBLICATIONS
The following recent and forthcoming NIJ publications are available from
NCJRS in both online and hardcopy formats. For ordering information,
call NCJRS at 800-851-3420; or send an e-mail to askncjrs@ncjrs.org.
Electronic copies can be downloaded from the Justice Information Center
Web site: http://www.ncjrs.org.
Building Knowledge About Crime and Justice: Research Prospectus 1998,
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1997,
22 pp., NCJ 167570. NIJ outlines its plans for addressing its major
long-range research and development goals in the year ahead.
NIJ-sponsored research in crime, the criminal justice system, and science
and technology for law enforcement engages many of the Nation's top
researchers. Projects are selected from proposals submitted in response to
an "open solicitation" for investigator-initiated research and to several
requests for proposals on specific topics, issued throughout the year. NIJ
sponsors basic research, demonstration programs, technology
development, and identification of innovative programs and effective
public policy. Also described is NIJ's program of dissemination to the
field.
The Crime of Stalking: How Big Is the Problem? Research Preview,
summary of a presentation by Patricia Tjaden, U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, October 1997, 4 pp., FS 000186. This
publication presents the findings of a survey on stalking, conducted as part
of the National Violence Against Women Survey, a collaboration between
NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Stalking was
found to be a bigger problem than previously thought, affecting about 1.4
million victims annually. Women are much more likely to be stalked than
men, and in the majority of incidents the stalker is known to the victim.
The survey also reveals that although stalking usually stopped within 1 to
2 years, victims often faced much longer term consequences, both social
and psychological. A 60-minute VHS videotape (NCJ 163921), "Stalking
in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women
Survey," is also available.
Criminal Behavior of Gang Members and At-Risk Youths, Research
Preview, summary of a presentation by C. Ronald Huff, U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1998, 4 pp., FS 000190.
This publication presents the findings of multiagency studies of the effects
of gang membership on criminal behavior. Examining four cities, the
researcher found that gang members were considerably more likely to be
involved in crime, especially violent and drug-related crime, than at-risk
youths of similar ages who were not gang members. Gang membership
also was associated with greater involvement with guns, including
ownership and use in crimes. A 60-minute VHS videotape (NCJ 164725),
"Criminal Behavior of Gang Members," is also available.
Criminal Justice Research Under the Crime Act--1995 to 1996, Research
Report, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
September 1997, 85 pp., NCJ 166142. This report summarizes research
and evaluation sponsored by the National Institute of Justice under the
Crime Act in its first 2 years. Areas of focus are community policing,
sentencing and corrections (including boot camps), violence against
women, and drug courts.
Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis, Research Preview,
summary of a presentation by Daniel Brookoff, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1997, 4 pp., FS 000172. The
researcher studied the prevalence of and contributing factors to domestic
violence in Memphis. Among the findings were that almost all assailants
had used drugs or alcohol the day of the assault, two-thirds of assailants
were on probation or parole at the time of the assault, and a majority of
battering incidents involved the assailant's use or display of a weapon. A
60-minute VHS videotape (NCJ 163056), "Drug Use and Domestic
Violence," is also available.
Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context, and Policy Implications,
Research Report, by Pamela K. Lattimore et al., U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1997, 150 pp., NCJ
167262. This report from the intramural research program of the National
Institute of Justice presents an analysis of homicide patterns in eight cities,
some with increasing and others with decreasing homicide rates,
examining the extent to which various factors (such as demographic trends
and economic conditions) are associated with the homicide trends. A
summary of the full report has also been published: A Study of Homicide
in Eight U.S. Cities: An NIJ Intramural Research Project, Research in
Brief, by Pamela K. Lattimore et al., U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, December 1997, 12 pp., NCJ 167263.
Immigrant Populations as Victims, Research in Brief, by Robert C. Davis
and Edna Erez, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
January 1998, 8 pp., NCJ 167571. This report presents the findings of a
study of the problems recent immigrants encounter as "consumers" of
criminal justice services and ways to improve the criminal justice response
to them. Interviews with law enforcement officials revealed that
immigrants reported crimes less frequently than other victims, with
domestic violence the most underreported crime. Officials also believe that
immigrants face greater hardships than other victims when reporting crime
or attending court, primarily because of language barriers and cultural
differences; interviews with immigrants interviewed confirmed these
findings.
Measuring What Matters: Part Two: Developing Measures of What the
Police Do, Research in Action, by Thomas V. Brady, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1997, 16 pp., NCJ 167255.
"Measuring What Matters" was a series of discussions, sponsored by NIJ
and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services' Policing
Research Institute, in which police chiefs, researchers, and leaders of
community organizations explored the development of police
effectiveness measures. Among the issues discussed were the feasibility of
constructing an index for minor crimes (disorders) similar to that of the
FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, the attributes of a "healthy" police
organization, and ways to measure police corruption. In preparation at NIJ
is a volume of the papers presented during the three Policing Research
Institute sessions.
National Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T., Research in Brief, by Finn-Aage
Esbensen and D. Wayne Osgood, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, December 1997, 8 pp., NCJ 167264. This report
presents early findings from a comprehensive evaluation of the Gang
Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program, a national gang
prevention effort aimed at middle school students. Preliminary results
support continuation of the program and demonstrate that trained law
enforcement personnel can serve as prevention agents in addition to being
enforcers of the law.
The NIJ Publications Catalog, 1996-1997, U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, November 1997, 64 pp., NCJ 166144. The
Catalog lists publications and videotapes produced by the National
Institute of Justice between January 1996 and June 1997, organized
alphabetically by subject. For each publication, the title, author, number of
pages, identification number for ordering, availability information, and a
brief description are included. Most items are free, and many can be
obtained electronically.
NIJ Publications Catalog: Sixth Edition, 1986-1996, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1997, 32 pp., NCJ 167244.
The Catalog lists all publications and videotapes produced by NIJ between
January 1986 and December 1996. Titles are listed alphabetically by
subject; each listing includes title, author, number of pages, ordering
number, and print and electronic availability. Most items are free.
The Orange County, Florida, Jail Education and Vocational Program,
Program Focus, by Peter Finn, U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, December 1997, 50 pp., NCJ 166820. The unusually
intensive educational and vocational program operated for jail inmates by
the Orange County, Florida, Corrections Division includes multiple
program components, among them adult basic education, GED
preparation, job training, and substance abuse education. Combined with
direct supervision and behavioral incentives, the program has reduced
staffing needs, construction costs, and violent incidents while increasing
inmates' educational levels and job readiness. There is also evidence the
program has reduced reoffending.
Policing in Emerging Democracies--Workshop Papers and Highlights,
Research Report, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
and U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs, October 1997, 120 pp., NCJ 167024. The
publication presents the papers and other addresses delivered at a
workshop on policing in emerging democracies held December 14-15,
1995, in Washington, D.C.
Rise of Hallucinogen Use, Research in Brief, by Dana Hunt, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1997, 12 pp.,
NCJ 166607. This study analyzing hallucinogenic drug use points to
evidence of these drugs' popularity among nonminority high school and
college students. Although the rising use of hallucinogenic drugs is not
associated with severe threats to law enforcement, there are public health
problems posed by users who drive while under their influence.
"Three Strikes and You're Out": A Review of State Legislation, Research
in Brief, by John Clark, James Austin, and D. Alan Henry, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1997, 16
pp., NCJ 165369. In this study, the effectiveness of the "three strikes" laws
in California and Washington State is evaluated and the differences among
new three-strikes laws enacted in 24 States are examined. The researchers
also compare the new laws to the States' preexisting provisions on repeat
offender sentencing. Early evidence shows that, with the exception of
California's law, most will have minimal impact on those States' prison
systems because they were drafted to apply only to the most violent repeat
offenders.
Violence Among Middle School and High School Students: Analysis and
Implications for Prevention, Research in Brief, by Daniel Lockwood, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1997, 12 pp.,
NCJ 166363. The study analyzes violent incidents among young people,
with a focus on the pattern of events, "opening moves," relationships
among antagonists, and goals and justifications. The analysis can be used
to indicate areas for intervention and prevention.
Visibility and Vigilance: Metro's Situational Approach to Preventing
Subway Crime, Research in Brief, by Nancy G. La Vigne, U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1997, 12
pp., NCJ 166372. In a report from the intramural research program of the
National Institute of Justice, the lower-than-expected crime rates for the
subway system (Metro) of Washington, D.C., are explained by design,
management, and maintenance characteristics that incorporate principles
of situational crime prevention and Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED).
-------------------------------------------------------
FINAL REPORTS
The following final reports--in manuscript form as submitted by authors--
pertain to completed NIJ-sponsored research projects. The reports are
available from NCJRS through interlibrary loan and as photocopies. For
information about fees, call NCJRS at 800-851-3420.
"DNA Legal Training and Technical Assistance Unit," by Christopher
Asplin and Renee Kostick, American Prosecutors Research Institute,
ACCN 167259, 1997, 8 pp., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0002.
"Efforts by Child Welfare Agencies to Address Domestic Violence: The
Experiences of Five Communities," by L.Y. Aron and K.K. Olson, ACCN
166054, 1997, 158 pp., grant number 95-IJ-CX-A037.
"The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence," by the National Research
Council, ACCN 166538, 1997, 244 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-0008.
"Police Response to Gangs: Case Studies of Five Cities," by D.L. Weisel
and E. Painter, ACCN 165614, 1997, 96 pp., grant number 90-IJ-CX-
K008.
"Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods," by F.J.
Earls and S.L. Buka, ACCN 163495, 1997, 118 pp., grant number 93-IJ-
CX-K005.
"Research in Action Partnerships: Outreach and Application of Research
Findings; Dissemination of Family Violence Research to Justice System
Practitioners," American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law,
ACCN 165203, 1997, 62 pp., grant number 96-IJ-CX-K002.
"Violence Against Women Act of 1994: Evaluation of the STOP Formula
Grants to Combat Violence Against Women," by M.R. Burt et al., ACCN
166312, 1997, 93 pp., grant number 95-WT-NX-0005.
"Coordinated Community Responses to Domestic Violence in Six
Communities: Beyond the Justice System," Final Report and Summary, by
S.J. Clark, M.R. Burt, M.M. Schulte, and K. Maguire, ACCN 166055,
1996, 168 pp., and ACCN 166056, 1996, 21 pp., grant numbers 95-IJ-CX-
A037 and HHS-100-95-0021.
"Day Reporting Centers as an Intermediate Sanction: Evaluation of
Programs Operated by the ATTIC Correctional Services," by A. Craddock
and L.A. Graham, ACCN 165726, 1996, 169 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-
4048.
"Police Officer Orientation and Resistance to Implementation of
Community Policing," by P. McCold and B. Wachtel, ACCN 165617,
1996, 26 pp., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0042.
"Boot Camps, Work Camps, and Community Needs: A Restorative Justice
Perspective on Correctional Objectives," by G. Bazemore and T.J. Quinn,
ACCN 165603, 1996, 14 pp., grant number 95-IJ-CX-0016.
"How Are Adult Felony Sex Offenders Managed on Probation and Parole?
A National Survey," by K. English et al., ACCN 163388, 1996, 124 pp.,
grant number 92-IJ-CX-K021.
"Statutory and Constitutional Protection of Victims' Rights:
Implementation and Impact on Crime Victims," Final Report and
Executive Summary, National Victim Center, ACCN 166461, 1996, 200
pp., and ACCN 166460, 1996, 6 pp., grant number 93-IJ-CX-K003.
"Drug Court Planning and Implementation: Selected Operational
Materials," American University School of Justice, College of Public
Affairs, ACCN 165499, 1995, 276 pp., grant number 95-DC-MX-K002.
"Pepper Spray Evaluation Project: Results of the Introduction of Oleoresin
Capsicum (OC) into the Baltimore County, MD, Police Department,"
International Association of Chiefs of Police, ACCN 164118, 1995, 100
pp., grant number 92-IJ-CX-K026.
Feature Report
Automated Booking in Federal
Law Enforcement
"Evaluation of JABS: Joint Automated Booking System Program," by
PRC Inc., Reston, Virginia, ACCN 167884, November 1996, grant
number 95-IJ-CX-0040.
Booking offenders into the Federal criminal justice system promises to
become more efficient thanks to a new, automated system for collecting,
storing, and retrieving information essential to investigators and
prosecutors. A recently conducted NIJ evaluation of a pilot program in
south Florida determined that the system is fast and easy to use, produces
high-quality information and, because it creates a single electronic record,
increases accessibility and eliminates duplication.
With the Joint Automated Booking System (JABS), users enter booking
information, which can then be retrieved electronically. The information
includes personal data about the offender, mugshots and fingerprints
(which are digitized), and other evidence. A key component of JABS is its
information-sharing capability: Once entered, the data can be sent to other
Department of Justice law enforcement agencies.
In an NIJ-sponsored evaluation conducted by PRC Inc., researchers
examined the effectiveness of the system as used by south Florida-based
agents of the Bureau of Prisons, DEA, FBI, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, and U.S. Marshals Service. The key question,
whether JABS represents an improvement over manually performing these
booking tasks, was answered in the affirmative. JABS was found to be
easy to use: More than two-thirds of those who used the system said they
were able to do so without seeking help. JABS reduces the time it takes to
complete bookings: On average, a practitioner using JABS can complete
the booking data entry in about 15 minutes, compared to about 25 minutes
without JABS. The data JABS produces are high-quality: The practitioners
who used the system said it generates better photographs, fingerprints, and
better recorded personal data on offenders.
JABS not only offers these benefits but also raises the possibility of
expanding or incorporating this method of data collection and exchange
into current and future national law enforcement systems. The system does
present some opportunities for improvement, however, and the evaluators
offered recommendations to pursue them. For example, the prospect of
JABS becoming a national system depends on defining operational and
technical requirements, developing system architecture and standards, and
methods for ensuring maintenance, security, and support. The researchers
also suggest that if the south Florida JABS "laboratory" were further
developed, it could become the pattern for expanding the system
nationwide, and in user training the focus could shift to the use of JABS as
an investigative tool in addition to a data collection tool.
-------------------------------------------------------
SOLICITATIONS
NIJ solicitations for research
All current solicitations for research and evaluation can be obtained
electronically from the Justice Information Center at www.ncjrs.org/
fedgrant.htm#nij or in hardcopy format from the U.S. Department of
Justice Response Center at 800-421-6770 (in the Washington, D.C., area
at 202-307-1480). Application forms and guidelines for submitting
proposals are also available.
Investigator-initiated research--solicitation forthcoming
In its "open solicitation" for research, NIJ invites prospective applicants to
submit proposals for research in any topic relevant to State or local
criminal justice policy or practice. The next solicitation for
investigator-initiated research will be issued early in 1998. Typically, the
grants range from $25,000 to $300,000 and last for 1 to 2 years. Proposals
are accepted twice yearly; due dates will be noted in the forthcoming
solicitation. Researchers may wish to review the current open solicitation,
which is available from the above sources.
Requests for VAWA research to come
Solicitations for research on violence against women will be issued by NIJ
in the near future. Several specific solicitations will request proposals for
research in areas such as domestic violence and arrest policies. To receive
copies of the solicitations, call the National Criminal Justice Reference
Center at 800-851-3420; write to NCJRS at P.O. Box 6000, Rockville,
MD 20849-6000; or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org and ask that your name be
added to the Family Violence and Violence Against Women mailing list
(#428).
-------------------------------------------------------
NEWS AND NOTEWORTHY
NIJ's "Perspectives" dates set
In NIJ's lecture series, "Perspectives on Crime and Justice," the country's
foremost criminologists are invited to examine major crime and justice
issues through the lens of public policy. The schedule for the second year
of the series, which begins in December 1997, is as follows:
o George Kelling, "Crime Control, the Police, and the Cultural Wars:
Broken Windows and Cultural Pluralism," December 2, 1997.
o Randall Kennedy, "Race, the Police, and 'Reasonable Suspicion,' "
February 3, 1998.
o David Musto, "The American Experience with Stimulants and Opiates,"
March 3, 1998.
o Joan Petersilia, "If Not Prison, What? Assessing Alternative
Punishments," April 1, 1998.
o Philip Cook, "The Epidemic of Youth Gun Violence," May 5, 1998.
The collected lectures from the series' first year have been published as:
Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1996-1997 Lecture Series, Research
Report, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
November 1997. This volume contains the papers presented by James Q.
Wilson, Peter Reuter, Mark H. Moore, Cathy Spatz Widom, and Norval
Morris. Copies are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service (order NCJ 166609). The 1997-1998 lecture series will also be
published.
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program
Since its founding in 1987, NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program
has generated data that have played an important role in constructing the
national picture of drug abuse. In major urban areas nationwide, DUF tests
booked arrestees for recent drug use, with the results made available to
State and local policymakers and the data used by researchers to study the
drugs-crime nexus.
The role of DUF as a "research platform" to explore the relationship of
drugs and crime has grown over the years. Researchers have used DUF
data to inquire into arrestee gun use, drug markets, and factors such as
gender and race as they relate to drug use. DUF's utility as a research
platform was one rationale for its transformation in 1997 to the Arrestee
Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program.
ADAM will build on DUF's success by incorporating new elements
intended to significantly strengthen the value of the data. Data collection
and sampling methodology will be redesigned to provide policymakers
and practitioners with a rigorous basis from which to assess local drug-use
trends and patterns and evaluate policy. ADAM will expand from the
current 23 sites to 75, and NIJ plans to develop local coordinating councils
to generate site-based research projects and to assume a prominent role in
disseminating the sites' findings. Plans also include an outreach program
to collect data on drug abuse from specific populations such as those in
suburban, rural, and Native American jurisdictions. Collecting data on
drug use in outreach populations will enhance the ability to track the
development and movement of new drug epidemics.
NIJ is also working to develop international ADAM sites. These sites
would provide important baseline information on world substance abuse
patterns and serve as a foundation for conducting international
comparative research on criminal justice and substance abuse topics. This
component of ADAM will include technical assistance from NIJ to
countries that participate in the international effort.
Interagency approach planned for research on violence against women
Collaboration on a long-term, 5-year research strategy on violence against
women is being proposed by NIJ and the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control (NCIPC). The goal is to achieve a coordinated
interagency and interdisciplinary approach to the research.
The genesis of the planned collaboration was the 1994 Crime Act. As a
result of congressional and administration concern about violence against
women, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was included as a
major part of the omnibus legislation. One VAWA component was a
mandate from Congress to meet the need for empirical data by developing
a systematic agenda for research on violence against women.
The research agenda was developed by the National Academy of Sciences
with funding from NIJ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC).[1] NIJ and NCIPC (a CDC agency) plan to work together to
coordinate the approach to the issues and priorities identified in the agenda
and to serve as liaison to other interested Federal agencies. The proposed
partnership will link the criminal justice and public health approaches at
the Federal level while avoiding duplication of effort that might occur if
the agencies acted on their own.
The proposed research would cover measuring the extent of violence
against women, why it occurs, and how to prevent it. Funding for the first
year of the program has been approved for fiscal year 1998.
National commission will make recommendations on use of DNA
evidence
Responding to the extraordinary advances in DNA technology over the
past 10 years that have left many criminal justice professionals without
proper training and technical support, in August 1997 Attorney General
Janet Reno authorized establishment of a national commission to make
recommendations about the proper handling of DNA evidence in criminal
cases. The commission will consider how recent advances in DNA
research affect the operations of the entire criminal justice system, from
crime scene through trial. Although the forensic use of DNA technology
increasingly offers prosecutors an important new tool to identify criminals,
there remain challenges for the scientific and justice communities. For
instance, in some cases, evidence may be improperly collected or
preserved; attorneys may be ill equipped to effectively question expert
witnesses; judges may be uncertain about making rulings on the
admissibility of DNA evidence in court.
The commission's creation can be traced to a recent study commissioned
by the National Institute of Justice, Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by
Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence
After Trial (NCJ 161258), which documented several cases in which
individuals who had been imprisoned later successfully challenged their
convictions using DNA evidence.
Commission members will be drawn from a broad spectrum of
policy-makers, criminal justice professionals, and experts in the use of
DNA forensic evidence. The commission will present its
recommendations to the Director of the National Institute of Justice within
2 years.
Note
1. The research agenda was published as Understanding Violence Against
Women, ed. Nancy A. Crowell and Ann W. Burgess, Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, 1996. It is available from the National Academy
Press at 2101 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20055. Phone
800-624-6242.
-------------------------------------------------------
A national center for research on forensic matters was recently established
with NIJ support. Based at the University of Central Florida in Orlando,
the National Center for Forensic Science (NCFS) was formally introduced
to the law enforcement community in May 1997. The opening of the new
center expands NIJ's network of technology centers, the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system.
Established as a forensic laboratory facility, the Center will initially focus
on arson and explosion research, training support, and technical assistance
for law enforcement agencies and laboratory analysts. Other goals include
developing guidelines for field investigators and analysts, promoting
information exchange (via an Internet web site), and creating facilities
such as an instrument development laboratory, an outdoor test site, and a
resource center. The university has coordinated with forensic specialists
from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in
planning NCFS activities that will complement the ongoing initiatives of
these agencies and avoid duplication of effort.
NCFS can be contacted by mail at the University of Central Florida, P.O.
Box 162367, Orlando, FL 32816; by phone at 407-823-6469; by fax at
407-823-3162; or by e-mail at natlctr@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------
New List of Current NIJ Research Projects
All the current research, evaluation, and program development projects
sponsored by NIJ constitute the agency's "research portfolio." This
publication, available online and in hard copy, includes grants and
contracts, interagency agreements, fellowships, and research conducted
intramurally by NIJ staff.
1997 NIJ Research Portfolio, Research in Brief, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1997, 40 pp., NCJ 166374.
The Portfolio presents all ongoing research, evaluation, and program
development projects sponsored by the Institute through June 30, 1997.
Each project listed is part of NIJ's overall strategic plan to respond to the
Nation's critical criminal justice concerns.
The Portfolio is organized into four main topic areas reflecting the breadth
of concerns of the Institute and the researcher and practitioner
communities: criminal behavior, crime control and prevention, the
criminal justice system, and technology research and development.
Researchers and others will find the Portfolio useful as a guide to NIJ's
research priorities. The Institute's approach to research is described in the
NIJ Prospectus. An "open" solicitation invites investigator-initiated
proposals in broadly defined areas. The Institute also issues separate,
focused solicitations for research on specific issues and programs.
-------------------------------------------------------
Online Resource of Violence Prevention Programs
Information about strategies that communities use nationwide to prevent
violence is available on the World Wide Web. The Partnerships Against
Violence Network (PAVNET) presents descriptions of programs in the
areas of youth violence, substance abuse, and victim assistance, along with
the names of program representatives and information about funding.
More than 1,000 entries are listed and are regularly updated. A list of
technical assistance providers and funding sources is also included, as are
online links to other violence prevention resources.
PAVNET may be accessed at http://www.pavnet.org.
-------------------------------------------------------
New NIJ Location
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
(overnight courier zip 20001)
All NIJ phone numbers remain the same.
-------------------------------------------------------
Selected NIJ Publications
Selected NIJ Publications About Policing, Drugs and Drug Testing, and
DNA
Listed below are some NIJ publications related to issues of policing, drugs
and drug testing, and DNA. These products are free, except as indicated,
and can be obtained from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service:
telephone 800-851-3420; e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org; or write NCJRS, Box
6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000.
These documents can be downloaded from the Justice Information Center
World Wide Web site at http://www.ncjrs.org, and are also accessible
from the NIJ Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/.
Please note that when free publications are out of stock, they are available
as photocopies or through interlibrary loan.
Policing
Brady, Thomas V., Measuring What Matters: Part One: Measures of
Crime, Fear, and Disorder, Research in Action, a joint publication of the
National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, 1996, NCJ 162205.
Communities: Mobilizing Against Crime, Making Partnerships Work,
National Institute of Justice Journal 231, August 1996.
Finn, Peter, and Julie Esselman Tomz, Developing a Law Enforcement
Stress Program for Officers and Their Families, Issues and Practices,
1996, NCJ 163175.
Fleissner, Dan, and Fred Heinzelmann, Ph.D., Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design and Community Policing, Research in Action,
1996, NCJ 157308.
Gaffigan, Stephen J., and Phyllis P. McDonald, Police Integrity: Public
Service With Honor, Research Report, a joint publication of the National
Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, 1997, NCJ 163811.
Mastrofski, Stephen D., et al., Law Enforcement in a Time of Community
Policing, Research Preview, 1996, FS 000149.
Sadd, Susan, and Randolph M. Grinc, Implementation Challenges in
Community Policing: Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in
Eight Cities, Research in Brief, 1996, NCJ 157932.
Skogan, Wesley, Community Policing in Chicago: Fact or Fiction?, VHS
videotape, 1995, NCJ 153273, U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign
countries $24.
Drugs and Drug Testing
Brookoff, Daniel, Drug Use and Domestic Violence, VHS videotape,
1997, NCJ 163056, U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign countries $24.
Brookoff, Daniel, Drugs, Alcohol, and Domestic Violence in Memphis,
Research Preview, 1997, FS 000172.
Feucht, Thomas E., and Gabrielle M. Kyle, Methamphetamine Use
Among Adult Arrestees: Findings From the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)
Program, Research in Brief, 1996, NCJ 161842.
Golub, Andrew, Crack's Decline: Some Surprises Across U.S. Cities, VHS
videotape, 1996, NCJ 164262, U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign
countries $24.
Golub, Andrew Lang, and Bruce D. Johnson, Crack's Decline: Some
Surprises Across U.S. Cities, Research in Brief, 1997, NCJ 165707.
Hunt, Dana, Rise of Hallucinogen Use, Research in Brief, 1997, NCJ
166607.
Mieczkowski, Tom, Hair Assays and Urinalysis Results For Juvenile Drug
Offenders, Research Preview, 1997, FS 000171.
1996 Drug Use Forecasting, Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile
Arrestees, Research Report, 1997, NCJ 165691.
Rhodes, William, and Michael Gross, Case Management Reduces Drug
Use and Criminality Among Drug-Involved Arrestees: An Experimental
Study of an HIV Prevention Intervention, Research Report, a joint
publication of the National Institute of Justice and the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, 1997, NCJ 155281.
Rhodes, William, Raymond Hyatt, and Paul Scheiman, Predicting Pretrial
Misconduct with Drug Tests of Arrestees: Evidence From Six Sites,
Research in Brief, 1996, NCJ 157108.
DNA
Connors, Edward, Thomas Lundregan, Neal Miller, and Tom McEwen,
Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of
DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, Research Report, 1996,
NCJ 161258.
Hammond, Holly A., and C. Thomas Caskey, Automated DNA Typing:
Method of the Future?, Research Preview, 1997, FS 000163.
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Janet Reno
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Raymond C. Fisher
Associate Attorney General
Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General
Jeremy Travis
Director, National Institute of Justice
-------------------------------------------------------
Justice Information Center
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ncjrs.org
National Institute of Justice
World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/